I guess it is fitting to mention the famous Wandsworth Constant (first 30% of the video can be skipped).
In seriousness, having had some exposure to the Langlands program (through the wonderful Love and Math by Frenkel), I was counting the minutes to hear about it.
I found the video to have a great layman explanation of what it is about.
Yes, this happens to me too. I can get maybe a maximum 15-20 minutes of increased cognitive performance after ingestion. Once that is over I become lethargic and afterwards a bit irate since my concentration dips.
It bothers me that people like Warren Buffet can go along their day ingesting copious amounts of coke normal and sweets and still be a functional productive human being.
That’s going to take a while to process for me. Have tried to be an active user since 2014 and whenever I have something of value, it’s already been expressed better by someone else.
Marc Twain had a technique to create text of value.
If you hear some news, notice your immediate reaction. Everyone thinks the same thing, so dump that thought in the litter. Same for your second immediate reaction. The third or fourth reaction are maybe different enough to merit writing down.
I almost didn't reply to this to say, "This is the same for me as well," because, well, it's the same! Someone already expressed, in better phrasing, what I would otherwise say.
But given the subject matter, I feel a reply is in order.
I don't think ive ever read a reply to one of my comments. I use Materialistic for Android and it doesn't really provide all the controls the desktop does. Particularly, I cannot edit comments, and I have no inbox or way to see replies to my comments. I remember when I realized that was even a thing when browsing on the desktop once, I had all these thoughtful and interesting replies and rebuttals but in the end it just gave me anxiety. So I just don't worry about it anymore, I comment what I think without the need to see if someone wants to debate, it's very freeing as I only comment rarely and on things which i feel strongly about.
Maybe im missing out on being schooled on all my 'infantile, toxic' opinions but I like it better this was. Reddit, has a much stronger echo chamber as there's no way to not see constantly delayed prominently, blinking and screaming for your attention, that someone replied to you. Likely a mob here to attack your self worth just for the sake of hurting your feelings, usually provoked by any opinion that's even slightly outside/opposed to the subreddit-approved thought patterns. It trains you to be afraid to challenge the status quo (there are many people who seem to use reddit only to attack). I know HN is better than that but I cannot help feeling some anxiety after a couple specific comments from which I futilely attempted to defend myself with reason and caring conversation.
Get in the habit of submitting interesting articles you read! It takes 15 seconds and adds a lot to the community to take a handful of shots at a submission each month.
Well, it wasn't so slow for me, but it did feel slow.
What I found most disappointing is that while I am here most for software development topics I got my karma on economic, political, geographic, Europe vs. US etc. topics.
It is a bit to me too yes, I don't make the rules! I can make sense of it though: 0 is neutral, as expected; comments start at 1, because everybody votes for their own comment; 1 point of comment score doesn't move user karma, because increasing karma just by commenting is undesirable.
While counterintuitive it does make sense. IMO psychological perception of difference between score 0 and 1 is far greater than difference between 1 and nigher scores.
Yeah your 1 score of post / comment doesn't give your karma, but it's still show your contribution as valuable.
Upvotes are what contribute to karma, not comment scores. A comment with a score of 1 hasn't received any upvotes (okay, maybe an equal number of upvotes and downvotes).
Counterintuitive for normal mortals. Maybe not for hackers who have learned that the first element is indexed by 0. Doesn't work in fully equivalent way. But hackers use more than languages and concepts are often somewhat different between them. It's been a long time I wrote FORTRAN IV :)
Don’t worry too much. Go find an Apple thread and post about CSAM or proprietary walled gardens, find any random CVE thread and post about how “heads must roll” or some shit, go find a meta thread and post about how repetitive the comments can be.
It’s a funny title. Both bonds and sports can be the verb. I’m assuming most people read the verb as Sports vs Bonds:
- Why Losing _Bonds_ Sports Fans: why when your team loses you strengthen your affiliations to your team.
- Why Losing Bonds _Sports_ Fans: why throwing away good money on bonds is popular (I have no background to decide why bond investing in bonds might be a good or bad idea).
Ugh I read it so many times because of this. First read: bonds? Like banking bonds? Second time: oh, Barry bonds from the giants? I didn’t like him either. Third read: ohhh bonds as in brings them together.
“Losing brings sports fans together” ok that makes sense.
Very many constitutions are actually silent on secession.
I am from Australia. To my best recollection, Australia's constitution never mentions the topic of secession, neither positively or negatively. But, territories of Australia have become independent before. Same is true of United States.
But, some will say a territory is not fully integrated, unlike a state or province, and a state or province would be different.
People say the US constitution doesn't allow secession of a state (as opposed to a territory) without a constitutional amendment. Not directly, but indirectly it does:
1. It is accepted that a territory (as opposed to a state) can secede and become a new country with consent of Congress
2. The US constitution allows a state to surrender some of its territory to the federal government (most obvious case is District of Columbia, but actually a lot of the Midwestern states were formed out of territory originally surrendered by the Eastern states which used to be a lot bigger than they are now)
3. So, a state wishes to secede could surrender all its territory to the federal government, and then Congress allows that territory to become independent.
Objection: States can only surrender some of their territory, not all of it.
Reply: Even if that is true, there is a workaround. Two states are allowed to merge with consent of Congress and their state legislatures. So, seceding state could merge into a neighbouring state, and then the new state would surrender the former territory of the seceding state to the federal government, and then Congress would grant that federal territory independence. (This would of course require the cooperation of a neighbouring state, which might be thought unlikely, but maybe not impossible – the neighbouring state might be pleased to see the seceding state go; the seceding state might sweeten the deal somehow by letting the neighbouring state keep part of its territory.)
Of course, the US Supreme Court might decide this is against the "spirit" of the US constitution. But they aren't compelled to conclude that it is against the letter. Strict constructionism would suggest this would be constitutional.
> People say the US constitution doesn't allow secession of a state (as opposed to a territory) without a constitutional amendment.
Congress granting a territory (or state, directly) independence isn't secession, whether or not it is allowed. Secession is unilateral, grants of independence are a different thing.
Madrid insists they couldn't allow Catalonia to become independent even if they wanted to.
Many people in Spain outside of Catalonia are resolutely opposed to Catalan independence, under any circumstances. By contrast, most people in UK outside of Scotland don't really care, and even the vast majority of those opposed to it would be willing to accept it if a referendum voted in favour. (Even those opposed to a second independence referendum, their argument is "too soon" rather than "never again"). In this regard, Spain is culturally more like China than the UK – pro-Beijing people get terribly upset at the idea of any territory claimed by the PRC ever becoming independent of it.
> Madrid insists they couldn't allow Catalonia to become independent even if they wanted to.
Which may or may not be a correct interpretation of the Spanish Constitution, but what the US Constitution does or does not allow regarding either secession or Congressional grants of independence is not really germane one way or another. They aren't even products of the same legal tradition such that analysis of one might be illuminating on the other.
Spanish opponents of Catalan independence repeatedly use the argument "Our constitution doesn't allow a part of our country to become independent; but in that regard our constitution is no different from those of many other countries".
So the question of what other countries' constitutions allow is relevant to the debate.
And the comment I was initially responding to was suggesting that the UK could only allow Scotland the choice of independence because it has an unwritten constitution. Explaining how other country's written constitutions could allow grants of independence to parts of the country is a relevant response.
This reminds me of Venezuelan’s use of `vaina` (literally a husk), an all-purpose catch word that I’ve seen used to supplant other words/concepts that you don’t have at the tip of your tongue. In my native Spain I see people use `historia` (history).
It’s not a substitute of shit, thing, and stuff, since it can be used alongside these words and you can bring the `vaina` to the `vaina`.
Maybe the weirdness of `jawn` is it's not a word on its own therefore it cannot cause confusion?
Non-Philly, non-US, non-native English speaker here, so please excuse me if I’m not getting the gist of the article.
Not recent, but perhaps words like doohickey, thingamajig, whatzit, ya-know, etc, are similar in American English. All substitutes for "concept/thing on the tip of my tongue that I can't recall the correct word for right now".
In seriousness, having had some exposure to the Langlands program (through the wonderful Love and Math by Frenkel), I was counting the minutes to hear about it.
I found the video to have a great layman explanation of what it is about.