themckman

If you’re looking for a service manager written in a lisp, there’s always GNU Shepherd. Written in and configured with Guile scheme.

That's a great question and one that I've struggled with myself. Best I can do is tell you to find a guitarist who you respect and appears to play without effort, find videos of them playing and try to emulate what they do. Practice with a metronome at very slow speeds and really focus on the motions and positioning required as you move from note to note and string to string. Arpeggios work really well for this type of practice because they're going to require you to hybrid pick and sweep to play them really fast.

rip

> Apparently, every computer science problem has easy to understand solution that’s easy to implement but awfully slow in practice.

I have been doing some data structures/algorithms review as I haven't really used much of that knowledge from my CS degree and, frankly, wasn't that great of a student when I was learning it. I've obviously focused mostly on understanding theoretical performance (Big-O) as I've been implementing and playing with things, but I'd like to know about good resources for things to consider about performance on real systems. I hear about things like cache misses, memory layouts and branch mispredictions, but don't really know how to apply that knowledge or, maybe more importantly, measure the effects of optimizing for some of those things over others. I'd appreciate any advice anyone has to offer.

One thing I've noticed recently at SEA is that there appears to be some sort of privatized PreCheck. I've had some guy come around with brochures for the company offering minimal lines/waiting to get through security if you signup for whatever the program is. Unfortunately, I'm having a hard time finding the company online.

I presume this is because you actually click the trackpad rather than turn on tap-to-click. Gotta turn on that tap-to-click. It doesn't take too long for my wrist to start hurting whenever I used someone's MB without tap to click.

> And you are basing this on what, exactly?

I made that statement based on my limited ability to extrapolate how our species might deal with the two scenarios. It sounds much, much easier to me, while still being incredibly challenging, to deal with large population displacement versus dealing with our planet becoming entirely uninhabitable.

Now, if I understand what you're saying, it sounds like our understanding of the probabilities of the two scenarios occurring isn't exactly known. While the two scenarios, at face value, sound incredibly different (to me at least), the likelihood of one happening over the other could be very similar. I agree that we should absolutely take that position seriously and that we should absolutely do things to guard against the possible outcome where our planet becomes uninhabitable.

All that I'm asking is that we say it like that. Lets say that instead of speaking in absolutes (e.g. "its a hoax", "we're doomed"). That's all I'm taking issue with. It doesn't help the discussion no matter what side of the argument those kinds of statements come from.

> And we do not have a second Earth to test your theories on. Are you really willing to take the risk of assured doom based on your belief that "the gap between now and assured doom is incredibly huge"?

To be clear, I don't have any theories I'd like to test nor do I know what I might be willing to risk. As I said in my original comment, my understanding of everything is incredibly rudimentary and I'm trying to do a better job seeking information to help me answer questions like that.

> > assured doom

> This part of your statement is actually a little bit of the problem here, too. Can you define more clearly what you mean by this?

That was my question. I appreciate your summary of the situation and I think your worst case assessment answers my question. Unfortunately, there's an incredibly huge gap between "loss of coastal regions" and "Earth becomes a second Venus". One situation sounds highly surmountable while the other sounds like the certain extinction of our species. When you use phrases like "assured doom", I tend to think of outcomes more like the latter and I find that type of rhetoric almost as unhelpful as denying the whole situation. It just doesn't help anyone.

I apologize for picking on you specifically, you're just the first one to express this kind of sentiment I came across.

> assured doom

This part of your statement is actually a little bit of the problem here, too. Can you define more clearly what you mean by this?

I'm very interested in exploring the issue better, but having to constantly sift through piles of hyperbole from both sides, it makes it very hard to remain interested.

My trivial understanding of everything goes: greenhouse gasses cause warming and we're the primary source of their increase in the past century so, therefore, we're causing the planet to warm. That's easy enough to understand. But after that, I find that I'm either an idiot because, duh, its all a hoax or that our species will be extinct tomorrow if I don't do something yesterday.

It's incredibly tedious to try and gain a better understanding of everything.

I was kind of hoping it would be an article about all the Lisps and Schemes.

> People should be rewarded for doing good things, and given disincentives for doing bad things. That's a powerful concept and I think the world would be a better place if people would get behind it in politics.

I remember seeing a clip from Bernie criticizing Trump after the news broke about him "saving" (there's obviously a lot to be discuss about what actually happened) the Carrier jobs, basically saying, American companies should want to keep their jobs in America because it is the right thing to do. After hearing that, I remember thinking to myself, "Yeah, you know, sure. You're right Bernie. Companies should want to do that because it's the American thing to do, but why is it such a bad idea to give companies incentive to stay?" And for the most part, I believe that's what Trump has been talking about with regards to keeping jobs in the US. It sounds to me that he is just trying to make it more expensive for companies to move their jobs overseas than to keep them here by the way of this import tariff he keeps touting. Now, of course, I have no idea how any of this plays out and turns into actual law, but the basic idea makes sense to me.

You don't just sign up to be a resident in another country. You have to be invited. I know its fun to say "Screw this! I'm moving to Canada", but it doesn't work like that.

Why shouldn't they exist?

Where and how do you shop now?