jmull
Joined 9 years ago
Joined 9 years ago
Knowing that you should do something, doesn't necessarily mean can do it. There's still the question of exactly how.
E.g., diet is heavily influenced by hormones/hormonal cycles and access to quality food choices, which vary significantly between people. The glp1s available now are a big help with the hormonal part of this, but they are not within reach of a large proportion of people.
> To me this is just subconscious denial/defending of their food addiction.
If you have to make up unobservable phenomena to explain plainly visible facts, it's usually a sign to look for a different overall model.
There's an existing concept of and precedent for, "Too big to fail." The wikipedia article gets the idea across [0].
This creates an implied "insurance" program, tilting the risk profile toward being aggressive. Taking a moon shot isn't so scary when you think the government will probably step in if it blows up bad enough.
This fluffy, political statement is a message: don't count on it.
Perhaps it will give investors/executives a few thoughts on preparing to deal with a potential blowup themselves?
They are both good answers, depending on what you're looking for. The first is clear, concise, and correct -- pretty much exactly what you want to read and write code with the $ prefix.
The other one is more interesting in a behind-the-scenes way, and goes through the thinking process behind it.
I can see why the first answer gets the most votes -- that's usually all people want. The other gets votes for the people looking for a somewhat deeper answer and are willing to spend more time reading to get it.
It shouldn't necessarily be about winning the voting... different perspectives are useful.
This includes a lot of remoting into Windows machines (using Jump) where I use the trackpad more, but the touch is still really nice to have.
AI Optimist: AI is going usher in an era of unparalleled productivity and achievement
The reality: RAM/Chip prices are way, way up. The starter iPad mini is $700.
That's what code does.
I think he really wants to be having a debate about whether we ought to be using different coding languages, more based on natural languages, more declarative.
I think the law provides an interesting perspective. It has a technical, formalized language, built out of a natural language. Since laws and contracts can be very high-stakes, the technical/formalized aspects arose out of a need to express hard constraints using a language whose complexities seem to be built more for story-telling.
You can muddy the waters with strawmen and politics, but I doubt you'll convince many people around here.
And who's to say whatever sites are migrated to won't be "sunsetted" in a few decades too?
Seems like a no-brainer to maintain it.
iPhones are aimed at the many millions/billions of technically unsophisticated users who don't care about rooting their phone, but would be very unhappy to get phished out of their life savings.
It's interesting what is considered acceptable and what isn't.