quiescant_dodo

> Aboriginals had no writing system so there would be no keyboards.

The Maya and Aztec had writing in the form of hieroglypics. The Inca had persistent communication via Quipu's rope knots.

(I learned this from _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ which is a phenomenal book. I haven't done other research, though, so maybe the book isn't a good source.)

Cool idea. I would expect the code to be very clean and simple for this, so I'm surprised there isn't a pseudocode algorithm presented (or a real implementation in some language).

In the past, I had pseudo-pair programmed in order to test. We'd agree on the external-facing API and pair-program a slow in-memory implementation. Once that was completed, we would split off and one of us would write test cases against the API (fixing up the in-memory implementation as needed) while the other would work on a proper database-backed implementation.

I haven't done this in probably 7 years, though. Mostly because I haven't cultivated this kind of working relationship with my coworkers.

It's not frivolous thinking. I agree with your statement that "you have a value of 1". That's our collective defense mechanism. But as a consequence, we all live with the knowledge that _if we step out of line_, then great powers can be used against us.

Some of those behaviors are generally for the good of society (e.g. 'murder is bad'). But others, like civil forfeiture, are much much more questionable.

Bitcoin and other digital assets _hide_ the problem. If the TSA knew you had a bitcoin wallet on the hard drive, they could seize that instead.

If you have full-disk-encryption and a crypto-wallet passphrase, you may be held on contempt charges anyways. That might be better, it might not. The underlying problem of "the state can seize your assets if you act 'suspicious'" is still there.

Woah! The idea of carrying that much cash is giving me a lot of third-hand anxiety. Did the person seem overly anxious? I can't imagine sharing that information with someone I just met!

This is a phenomenal bug report.

Opening up with "I'm sorry" sets a tone for the conversation. If my last interaction with someone was a little tense, I need to _reset_ the emotional balance before moving forward.

In this hypothetical, I don't believe I did anything explicitly wrong. But I also didn't handle the situation well. Maybe the "sorry" is "sorry for not addressing your concern". Or maybe it's just "sorry that 'mansplaining' is a situation you encounter frequently". It doesn't have to be BLAME. Just empathy.

> This minor event bothered me so much I never talked to her about programming puzzles ever again.

This makes me sad, but it is exactly what I would have done. My life is built on avoiding anything awkward or uncomfortable. And...that's not working for me anymore. Thanks to a mental health professional, I'm working on embracing these "problems".

If I had your experience today, I'd come up with a plan to at least clarify things. I'd probably start with a slack message. Maybe something like:

> I'm sorry.

> When I talk programming puzzles with <person>, we have a routine of the first person to solve waits a short while and then shares the answer.

> I like that system, as spending 45 minutes to come up with the "trick" usually isn't fun for me.

And then see how the conversation goes. I'd expect 70% something with the feeling of apology-accepted, 20% being told that mansplaining is a pattern of mine, 5% things getting very personal/real/vulnerable, and 5% wildcard. Maybe the estimates are wildly off. I'm still new to being honest and real. But today-me looks at those odds and says sum of awkward + fear isn't high enough to beat the expected value of the conversation.

> people don't want to have to advertise themselves as "willing to take criticism". That should be norm.

I don't think this is precisely correct. In the situations like in the article, the issue is that both parties are playing a dance around _what kind of feedback/criticism_ is acceptable.

If I ask you "why might my business fail?", and your gut reaction is "your personal life is a mess", do you tell me this? Even with an NDA, that's _super harsh_ feedback.

(This feedback would hurt me more AFTER the NDA. The NDA would change my expectations around the types of feedback. I'd expect "you're not a good programmer" or "you don't work enough hours to beat the competition".)

But if I _really_ wanted to have my business succeed, that's feedback I probably need from someone other than my therapist. :)

I didn't downvote, as I think this adds to the conversation. But as a _systemic solution_, I don't think the "advice NDA" holds up.

As a one-off (or a personal "hack"), the NDA is an offering of empathy. Sharing sincere feedback is hard. Offering the NDA shows that the advice-asker is worried about the advice-giver's well-being. It's nice and genuine, and I hope it will work.

But, this idea seems so GOOD at first blush, that I'm afraid it will become widespread and lose sincerity. Anytime feedback is involved, the NDA appears as legal boilerplate. It's no longer a personal connection built on shared vulnerability. Instead, it's a corporate threat: "If you want advice, we can either be friends or go to court."

I think you missed the point.

Measuring one-way speed of light requires perfectly synchronized clocks. You cannot do this over any distance, as it requires the speed of light to propagate between the clocks. So you must synchronize the clocks when they are together.

But then you must move at least one clock, which subjects the clocks to unknown time dilation. We can't even assume that the time dilation from movement X is the same as from movement -X, even to impossibly-precise measurements and controls. The _premise_ of the question about one-way speed of light is un-divorceable from time dilation. If you _assume_ that the time dilation is the exact same, you are also _assuming_ that the amount of time light takes from A-to-B is exactly half of A-to-B-to-A.

Einstein himself articulated this problem. He's certainly known for more than "attempting to be a physicist".