It's incredible how much downvotes you got for this without any explanation. Your proposal sounds sensible and I agree that we need to find a new system. It doesn't have to be this that you described but we should be open to change. Capitalism the way it is leads us in the wrong direction and socialism doesn't fare too much better in practice. We need to redraw a plan for the 21st century
Discouraging political discussions is a very political thing in itself. The comment we are discussing might not be a great example of encouraging curiosity, but being the person that says "don't be so political" is complacent and ignorant. We arrived at the current situation due to political decisions and a political process.
I am not accusing you of being that person, not anyone else. I am just tired of people not seeing that upholding the current situation is as political as criticizing it. This discussion made me try to put it in words.
But part of a curiosity-based discussion is also trying to satisfy the curiosity of others by providing answers. The most insightful and thought-provoking of those can sometimes be rather “political”, because the things we think about and are curious about are.
this doesn't read like a battle, though. one could argue that opinions that run counter to the generally accepted norm are inherently good for curiosity.
It is indeed incredible. As I said, you cannot “criticize the profit” in the USA without losing social standing. Capitalism is a national religion because people think the only alternative is socialism (collective ownership of the means of production - which btw isn’t scary on small levels) and the USA fought a cold war with USSR for decades.
That’s why there will be a third party in the USA that unites disaffected progressives on the left with disaffected paleoconservatives on the right. A lot of people are fed up with the divisions.
I welcome counterpoints and debate but as you can see — there are just silent downvotes instead
You're probably being downvoted because even if your critique might be thoughtful at some parts, it is also quite snarky and smarmy at the beginning, and sounds like it's posing an ideological battle. Starting at the third sentence, "This is what capitalism looks like, folks." In fact, you're still doing it, "Capitalism is a national religion..."
Do you think people on HN want to engage with your comments when you're saying they're foolishly clinging to a religious belief?
By the way, this was a decent point: "[W]e are all depending on your integrity and ability to rebuff life-changing amounts of money to not mine our data." Maybe this thread would be different if you stayed with points like that instead of accusing people of harboring religious beliefs that pulls the wool over our eyes, preventing us from seeing things your way.
> Do you think people on HN want to engage with your comments when you're saying they're foolishly clinging to a religious belief?
To be fair you inserted "foolishly clinging", and are now blaming them for something they did not actually say.'
Capitalism is highly akin to religion - they're not the first and will not be the last to draw that comparison, and plenty of words have already been written on the topic. If your response to reading "capitalism is a national religion" is to assume you're being insulted, perhaps consider that the statement may be more true than you think.
We have brainwashed ourselves with dogmatic theory. I see nothing wrong with the code. This code is not for business production. It works well for what it is. Un-brainwash yourself! It's great that Knuth doesn't have to apply for a job and go through the gauntlet because that would make Knuth un-Knuth!
There’s a guy on youtube, Sam Vankin. He is the author of Malignant Self Love: Narcissism Revisited and has been studying this for a long time. He claims to be or have been a narcisist himself due to some early childhood trauma. Look him up, he claims he developed a therapy for this and he lives in eastern europe, you can even pay him a visit if you’re interested in aleviating or improving your condition. Whats worse about this condition is, that if left untreated and despite any acomplishments you’ll have ever made you’d always be deeply unhappy within, basically a shell of your true self and this will probably spill in your life and around you and make a lot of victims: family, friends, basically everyone around you.
I think that’s the best use for 4k, there are lots of tiny details in nature that come to life in 4k. For other things, movies and such it may even make it worse in some cases, too much detail isn’t always better.
You put a nice twist on it and I almost agree. I think "all over the place" is more closely related to ideas like disordered, indiscriminate, every which way, unsystematic -- you could intentionally create a work that looks unsystematic, but that's not the case for the people and films we were discussing.
I agree that all over the place doesn't imply intentional or not. In this case all over the place had a human artistry twist and the final product as a piece was not all over the place but the framerate itself was.
As an anecdote, I remember when I was a kid (early 80s) my uncle who collected old cameras and projectors exchanged with me an old hand cranked pathe-baby projector for a solar powered calculator. The projector was working properly and had a few films cassettes and they were supposed to be played back at variable hand cranking speeds according to the scenes. It was an interesting experience to play those films back to my family in the only room that had absolute darkness, in the kitchen.
If I remember correctly you could go backwards too. The film would collect a glass covered container inside the projector's body and when the film was over you had to crank it back inside the cassette.
Thanks for sharing. Indeed, this photo collection is nice. I can’t help but feel sad for these people, maybe one day the dynasty will collapse and we’ll hear real uncensored stories from NK
That is NK in a nutshell. To me it will always be surprising even if it’s been known to be like that. The artist is talking about how the restrictions are a boon to his crrativity
I noticed this recurring theme. Seems like that eventually all companies go down this path at some point if they become mega rich. At that point money alone doesn't matter as much as capturing new markets do so lots of money goes down the drain. It's a good thing for the companies that get acquired and get their paycheck.
I see as rich people who buy expensive things and let them rot because they forgot they bought them or so.
Sometimes bets like these turn out to be huge wins, like Microsoft going into the gaming platform space with the Xbox or Amazon building out cloud services. The Intel app store idea doesn't seem like such an idea to me, but I can see how the board could have been pushing for "outside the box" big bets.
I'd argue that Microsoft and Amazon's branches were at least tangential to what they were doing in the back-end and that they already have most of the required talents to do it right.
I have no idea how Intel could work their way into running an app store beyond "we have tech and market dudes, good enough right?"
With their new fabric/modular system, the modules are effectively "apps". Though possibly sold by app developers, you could install the Adobe module or the Autodesk module and it would have hardware/ram/storage tuned to those applications. It will start with DL and Graphics accelerators but then morph into application specific.
No no no, sorry but it’s a completely different story. Microsoft is a Software company and with the XBox they sought to expand from their business software market into the entertainment software.
It’s still software and besides the hardware which wasn’t much different from a standardized gaming PC, they worked on building the software platform and developer accessories. Something they happen to be pretty decent at...
Public markets demand growth. So boards demand managers who do Growthy Things. When it doesn't grow, you toss the old managers lots of money for their service, find new managers who promise you new Growthy Things, and repeat.
Wait till you get to work in some complex code bases and you'll understand why jamming all kinds of idioms into one language can become a disaster. It's a tool after all, if you know how to use it properly you don't paint yourself into a corner. However, too much flexibility can lead to many problems in larger teams. Good luck!
I don't know, what's easier to understand? Sorting a list with an IComparer instance that you have to implement in a concrete data type somewhere, or just tossing it a lambda expression? Just because it's new syntax doesn't mean it's automatically more difficult to understand the language.
I got nothing against functional programming, I embrace it. However, im stating again, shoving everything under one umbrella is bound to create a complex monster. Functional programming is actually easier to understand in F# rather than C#, the idioms do translate but clunkily. Do yourseves a favor and spend some time outside C# and you’ll come back illuminated.
Not saying C# is bad, thats what you all seem to understand though.
Yes, its all subjective, I know. But stepping out of the garden is what I’d like people to take out of this. Saying C# is the most beautiful language (like some commenter states) is true only if you haven’t dabbled in many languages. And once you do you feel stupid for having had this conviction in the first place. Ive used C# throughout my career, I don’t diss the language or the ecosystem, but other things are to be considered as well and cargoculting is a thing
Java proves that limiting language features for "simplicity" just pushes the complexity somewhere else and generally much worse.
C++ is usually taken as a language with too many features but really it just has a few very flexible features and people abused those features to do all kinds of metaprogramming. As C++ has been adding more native metaprogramming idioms it has actually been getting simpler to code in.
I appreciated Smalltalk for a while but it is simple only on the surface and once you peel below that it's extremely complicated. Simple syntax doesn't necessarily lead to simple designs.
Lisp's limited syntax allows everyone to create their own "language" and that's arguably worse than the fixed set of statements that exist in other languages. I'd even argue that Lisp is inhuman because it's brutal compared to natural languages.
This is probably why neither language is more than an intellectual curiosity. COBOL, Fortran and BASIC have also all "stood the test of time".
>I appreciated Smalltalk for a while but it is simple only on the surface and once you peel below that it's extremely complicated.
Not really. Definitely not compared to C# or Java. Smalltalk simply has more system-level code accessible to the user.
I've worked with Java environments that tried to replicate the visual programming features of Smalltalk. They were about 10X the size of a modern Smalltalk distribution (Squak or Pharo), had at least 100 times slower startup time and you still needed an external IDE to get anything "serious" done with them.
I agree with your sentiment. But writing good code is also avoiding playing "who knows more language features" between the coder and the reviewer.
I have seen a function which incorporated all new language features of that language version just because the dev could. A simple for loop would have made the same work. The reviewer failed here totally. Readability, Simplicity and consistency in the code base are a thing when reviewing.
Preventing this is a duty of the code reviewer and the team.
There may be a point where the total economic cost of newbie training exceeds the benefits of improving efficiency for the experienced. C++ arguably did that. Another problem is that people will use different languages if the learning curve grows too high.
Yes, i find that a good argument especially if you plan on using this feature a lot it can save you from shooting yourself in the foot. It also is a better idiom in F#, nicer to grok, but that’s subjective.
However, only direct experience will make you reconsider.
I’ve seen a discriminated union implementation in C# the other day and was repulsed.
I use OneOf<T...> in C# a lot now. If you’re thinking of the same one I am the only ugly thing about it is the code-generation required to generate all of the variations from OneOf<T0,T1> to OneOf<T0,T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,T6>.
