SavantIdiot

And it got flagged. HN: still a bro club after all these years.

Irix! When I got my MFA in '88 we had Mac IIs, Amigas, and a SGI workstation. There was a huge difference: the macs/amigas sat quietly on the work desks in their sleek beige boxes, the workstation was about 3'x2'x3' box with roaring fans that whirred menacingly from beneath the desk, and took up all legroom.

Pivot tables are so 1990's. Vector functions (you have to press three keys at once!) and 2D table solvers are all the rage. Get with the hip crowd. /s

Two satires from The New Yorker on HN front page in one day!

This should have been about Excel. I see way more puffery surrounding Excel than I do Word.

You're doing the same thing you are criticizing your straw-person leftists as doing.

As a leftist, it is quite easy to critique her ideas in good faith: she disdains anyone who doesn't confirm to her idea of "productive", abhors the poor, and deifies the upper class as being the ultimate model of humanity. And that's not even being reductive.

I gave my partner an airtag as a test to see how accurate it was. After three days of daily driving around going to work errands etc, they received no warning whatsoever but I could still track. Don't know why, but it scared both of us.

I soured on the idea (more work, ROI?) and never used them, but when I see pages like Webpack, Bootstrap and Python docs, I drool over their well-designed, easily cross-referenced doc system and wonder what they use. Someday...

I joined a project that used it back in 2014. What I found was that the documentation ended up being about as useful as reading the header files, and less useful once you open the code in an IDE that allows semantic browsing.

OTOH, if someone does take the time to document the header files, they blow up in size significantly.

I don't like it. Better to just keep documentation up to date and keep the two separate. Comments should be concise, documentation should be more verbose, IMHO.

A bit of a grandiose article, but yeah, they actually do mess with your head. Maybe not as woo-like intensity as OP elaborates.

I did one and it took me a long time to feel anything, and suddenly I couldn't tell how big my body was, or where my limbs were: my proprioception disappeared. But that was all I got. That and a bad case of the runs because I accidentally splashed some of the water into my mouth and swallowed it.

I made a spreadsheet of all of his books, and read everything my library had, which was about 70% of them. His early stuff is shlocky and gets tedious by the 10th book from that era. About 20% of his stuff is truly groundbreaking, the rest is ... boring.

Not clicking on that. I recall seeing a picture of rows of hundreds of crabs strapped to harnesses, bent in half, with needles in their backs draining their blue blood. Still can't get it out of my head.

Now I don't know what "rotation" means. After reading that thread, the phrase "rotating through spacetime" is still just gibberish. It sounds like he's trying to solve a physics problem backwards by making the units match: because the Lorentz transformation is a hyperbolic rotation matrix with a trig property applied, somehow it is a rotation? That just perverts the word "rotation".

> "nerds aren't the good guys anymore,"

Why would anyone assume this was ever true?