Could you expand on your comment a bit please? I've not heard of Lem before now. How does it compare to Emacs? Also your comment about cultural leadership. I'm not sure what you're referring to specifically. (Asking in good faith out of curiosity).
The FSF is the only home to the most dogmatic and narrow minded human beings I have ever met in my life. I dare not begin writing why. It is an essay. I have priorities to build things independent of the FSF proclivity for shortcomings.
The reason I recommend Lem is because CL is a general purpose programming language. The two-way flow of professional code in and out of the editor is a tremendous advantage that pays all sorts of dividends to libraries, innovation, runtimes, and tooling. Elisp is a Lisp, but affectionately known as "the worst of the Lisps" among serious Lisp programmers.
Some among the Emacs community are not blameless. Todays AI naysayers are just yesteryears tree-sitter doubters who said "We don't need all that fancy JSON garbledeygook" about LSP adoption. They were against an X frontend. They were against cl-anything in the symbol space. As the rock weathered away, the most abrasive sands remained. Proud they are of the lost atoll upon which no coral may grow.
Lem is an Emacs-like editor built in Common Lisp. It's very impressive and usable for its age and I can see why some people see it as a better Emacs. Still has nowhere near the mindshare of Emacs, though, and it has a long way to go before it can match the Emacs ecosystem.
It doesn't. There is a terminal frontend, a web rendering frontend, and a deprecated SDL frontend. The web frontend was explicitly developed to speed up development, writing implementations for graphics described in CL (the part being accelerated) that can be later served by another frontend should some technical need emerge. Anyone acting like this is Electron is either leaping to conclusions or being intentionally misleading.
You're obviously not very well acquainted. Positron is explicitly aligned with _OSS thinking. "Free/libre" is how the FSF moralizes use of their GPL in order to acquire more copyright assignment from programmers who pay code into their racket so that the FSF can then lord over donations they draw by promising yet another project.
My understanding is that the optimal scenario is taking an SSRI in combination with therapy. The SSRI adds flexibility for the brain to respond to therapy and envisage new possibilities. If you don't include therapy, you've just established a new baseline to habituate to.
This is true overall, but it only works for a limited set of patients. It's pretty likely that what we're calling depression is a different set of diseases that manifest with common symptoms, and SSRIs + therapy work wonders for some variants, but not others.
In fact, we actually do know this to be the case already: bipolar disorder also manifests with the same symptoms as depression for some time, and SSRIs + therapy are definitely not enough to treat bipolar disorder. Most likely there are other similar diseases that present with depressive symptoms that we have yet to identify distinctly and don't know how to treat effectively.
I was drawn to engineering by the joy of learning and problem solving. The pain of puzzling over a difficult problem, then the ecstatic release when you figure it out and get it working. I don't understand why someone would want to give that up. It gives meaning to the work.
You don't need to argue it out with HN, if you want to negotiate landlords generally are happy to at least consider it. I've paid rent as an annual lump sum before.
Makes more sense since most live week-by-week. Similar to how AM/PM notation makes more sense since it's how we tell time. US date format is harder to defend, but...
I'll be called a heretic but, a couple of years ago (after being back in a country that uses day/month/year instead of the US), I came to the conclusion that the month/day notation is actually more useful to me.
Quite often, the month of the date is more relevant to me than the day. Knowing at a glance whether something is happening in the same month as the current day, or in the same month as some other date, is more convenient, as is being able to easily group things by month visually.
And yeah, I can definitely acknowledge month/day/year makes no sense, but it works for me.
I think language does us a disservice here. I'm reminded of Korzybski's work in Science and Sanity. The interpretation of "truth" depends on which level of abstraction you are operating on. "Every statement is true in some sense, false in some sense, and meaningless in some sense". The term "reality" implies a perceiver, and that perceiver is generating "reality" based on their neurological instrument, which has its own biases based on its prior experience and genetics.
But the problems described by the parent comment also exist in mathematical language, that’s what Godel Incompleteness is. The problem is inherent to all conceptual frameworks
No. Subjective reality is what we experience as sentients. There must be an object reality and imho that is the only statement of truth that can be uttered in language, with "language" to be understood in the sense that Werner Hisenberg uses that term.
So I'm with Bohr, Hisenberg on this matter. We can not 'presume' to speak of the Real with capital R. It exists but it can not be 'encompassed'.
No vision can encompass Him, but He encompasses all vision. Indeed, He Is the Most Subtle, the All-Aware! - Qur'an - 6.103
Leave out the quran quote since that is most definitely not what Bohr/Heisenberg/Others mean when they talk about subjectivity/observation/measurement. See my comment here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45759220
If you want to discuss Philosophical/Ontological/Epistemological concepts of Reality/Truth etc. there are far better models in Hindu/Buddhist scriptures. The submitted article itself refers to Nagarjuna's Sunyata and Madhyamaka Buddhist philosophy.
The quote seems perfectly fine in illustrating the idea that reality will always transcend our language or thought (to the extent that can be expressed in any language).
And if you appreciate Hindu scripture, that particular quote could have been lifted almost verbatim from the Upanishads.
I don't appreciate the dogmatism that is associated with a lot of orthodox Islam either, but this is something similar to a lot of conservative religious outlooks, as you can find among people identifying as Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, etc. But in fact this particular quote can be seen as antithetical to any such dogmatic position, and it's worthwhile to recognize points of agreement even though you might disagree in other areas.
I find your chauvinism is what doesn't belong to HN. Bohr was familiar with Eastern scriptures so it is perfectly understandable as to why he would reference its formulations. I happen to familiar with both and I do not see any discrepency or antagonism in these scriptures. You may not benefit with such comments but it is possible that others will find it useful and informative.
I dislike unnecessary religiosity being dragged in where there is no reason for it.
> I happen to familiar with both
I don't think you are. No Quantum Physicist has ever quoted anything from Quran since there is nothing there (it is the youngest of all religions being only from 7th century AD) which has not been already elaborated in Hindu/Buddhist/Greek/Chinese/Christian philosophies/worldviews. That is why most scientists quoted from those ancient scriptures. There is no need to try and hoist your opinions on them.
Moreover the article specifically mentions Carlo Rovelli drawing inspiration from Nagarjuna's Buddhist philosophy and hence that is the model we should look at to try and understand what he means (and not drag in all and sundry others).
What is this, childish echolalia? The "religiosity" was right there in your totally unnecessary quote.
> How could you possibly know?
By inferring from your comment(s), duh!
> And frankly, with that handle, it seems you are the one with a "religious" issue.
What does this even mean? If you are referring to the passage i quote in my HN profile, that is the opposite of "any religiosity". Read the cited book for edification.
Quoting the Quran in a positive light is like doing the same with Mein Kampf, except that Islam has caused a lot more deaths over the years. I'd say it's yours that doesn't belong on HN.
If you are going to attack the sacred text of two billion people, it would be better to avoid a lazy comparison to Hitler. Have you read the Quran? Do you understand the historical roots from which it emerged? Do you know how it had been used and abused? What is the relationship between modern science and islam? How has it been used to justify violence? How has it been to argue for peace? Have the people who have used it to justify violence understood the original meaning? How does the violence/body count compare to other dogmatic religions, especially christianity?
There is violence in every ideology. To deny this is to deny reality. Singling out one group as uniquely prone to violence is both uncivil and dangerous in my view. That does not mean that one cannot point out the shadow side, but one should look in the mirror of one's one preferred ideology, whether that is christianity, atheism, scientism, nationalism, rationalism, etc., before casting blanket aspersions at others.
> Do you understand the historical roots from which it emerged?
Justification of one of the biggest, fastest, and most brutal conquests in history? Because everybody who wasn't a Muslim was fair game for killing or slavery? Because all non-Muslim land really belongs to the Muslims?
That's what it actually says.
> Singling out one group as uniquely prone to violence is both uncivil and dangerous in my view.
Something that I very clearly didn't do. And there was nothing lazy about my comparison.
My feeling is there are often factors which are not captured in job market statistics, which is why it's important to listen to the experience of grads seeking jobs. When I graduated in 2018, it took me a whole year to land a job (graduated with first class honours in electronics engineering in Australia, with 7 months overseas experience working for a chip design company in germany and a research scholarship at university). I came across job interviewers who had very irrational approaches to hiring, which I suspect was partly because they had too many applicants and were overworked processing them. One medical hardware company turned me down because they said I was overqualified and would get bored and quit. Overqualified as a grad. What a joke. I just needed a job before the next round of grads came out and left me forever shut out of my future field. It was a massive shock to my system as I had done nothing but work hard for years to get top marks and industry experience, and it still wasn't satisfactory (also building projects to showcase in interviews). I feel for new grads.
> My feeling is there are often factors which are not captured in job market statistics
they absolutely manipulate the numbers and choose a formula that doesn't accurately represent most people's feelings about the market. I always trust a lot of anecdata over the "official" numbers - word of mouth almost always indicates a problem before the official numbers do.
Thanks for your input. I have a similar feeling about general economic matters. I like Gary Stevenson's perspective on this. When the numbers say the economy is doing well, but you talk to "ordinary people" and they say they feel their living standard is declining, which source do you believe? All inputs should be considered to try to get an accurate picture.
Well an obvious recent attempt happened in America with their latest jobs numbers. The President tried to bully the record keeper to change the numbers. When that didn't work the President moved to fire the record keeper (the last I checked the record keeper still has their job).
As bad as the politicization of the BLS is, that's nowhere close to the original accusation that the formulas have been tampered with. Moreover the previous comment implied this was some sort of long standing practice, whereas the BLS firings only happened recently.
well, for one, there's 6 different formulas for unemployment/jobs numbers...
and they don't count ppl who stopped looking for work for whatever reason nor do they count underemployed ppl who are working, but still don't earn enough to live.
>My feeling is there are often factors which are not captured in job market statistics, which is why it's important to listen to the experience of grads seeking jobs.
In aggregate yes, but in an individual sense I'd be very careful. There are a lot of people out there that are just bad at presenting themselves in a way to get hired. While the people that are good at it are likely getting hired pretty quickly and aren't thinking much about it. This can make it hard to get a good sense of how difficult it is to get hired. Additionally, the current general mood about the economy frequently gets ascribed to someone's current experiences.
Not saying today isn't super difficult though. I think the video has quite a few good points, especially around the risk of not hiring junior employees. Its thankless to do that though, as a business you spend a lot of time and money training up someone to be good at their job, and most of them will leave to another job after a few years, and you are hoping someone else has done the same for you to hire someone at a mid level to replace them to keep the team in balance.
For what it's worth, one of my uni lecturers in my final uni year told me that over half the cohort for that year would never work in engineering because there weren't enough jobs. He said the uni didn't want him imparting that information but he thought it was unethical. I'm sure he had a historical perspective that informed that advice. I've worked with older guys who got engineering jobs without degrees and taught themselves FPGA design on the job in the 80s and 90s. There's no chance of that happening now.
The left and right have more in common with each other than they realise. Many of the distinctions become irrelevant when you realise it's really workers against the power of massive capital.
>Many of the distinctions become irrelevant when you realise it's really workers against the power of massive capital.
If you're talking about the two parties, Democrats and Republicans, then sure. But that's mostly because the Democrats are only nominally "leftist." Both parties are pro police, pro military industrial complex, pro Zionism, and pro capital. Both support the American white supremacist imperialist order. It isn't left and right where American power structures are concerned, it's center-right and far-right.
But the distinction on the ground, with real people, is definitional and couldn't be more distinct in that the left recognizes class struggle and sides with the workers, while the right recognizes class struggle and sides with capital. The dissonance between the left and the Democrats versus the harmony between the right and Republicans is why the Democrats keep losing elections - between the two camps only Trump and the Republicans are actually giving their constituents what they voted for.
I enjoyed reading fiction until I studied electrical engineering. After that I felt that fiction was a waste of time. On a cognitive level I don't think it is, but I think the feeling comes from having been instilled with a sense that reading has to involve some degree of learning. As though everything I do has to involve some self betterment. It's frustrating and I feel a sense of loss about it.
Sorry, it wasn't my intention to demean the project. I can just see a humorous aspect to it. The human element reminded me of Mancierge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4WrPkKc2Wg
