> there are no physical observations which contradict Zuse's notion, as he wrote it, of a computable universe.
There is no model capable of simulating the universe either.
I also wonder what such an observation would have to look like. Observations per se are unique and recorded and therefore can be reconstructed via trivial computation. Which brings us to the laws of physics. You may believe that they are utterly wrong and the universe is deterministic after all, but then the burden of proof is upon you.
I'm color blind. Most color schemes just fuck up reading. Or they hurt my eyes. I haven't found anything that really convinces me, although having some words in bold does help, but the number should be quite limited. I can see the structure easily enough, so there's no need to emphasize "THERE'S AN IF HERE, IT IS A RESERVED KEYWORD!!".
I don't know your motivation, but your remarks do not match my reading of the article. The dismissed studies came from children in unrepresentative conditions (ignoring the fact that this kind of data is extremely noisy and that studies in social sciences are notoriously bad).
It's also not "both-sides-ism." The main anti-daycare fear mongering seems to center around the idea that it's bad for your children, but the opposite is suggested by the article.
When one conducts research, she selects a setting where an outcome is likely to be visible. For new drug approvals, one selects patients who are as sick as reasonably attainable (ie before unrelated secondary effects arise)
The fact that the very needy children benefit the most in no way implies that other children will be harmed. To make that statement without data is irresponsible for the authors, and I don’t see their data anywhere.
So this is essentially both-sides-ism. They present one reasonable if flawed idea and its totally unreasonable counterpart
Speakers, at least the great majority of them, are not flat. Can you not hear differences between speakers? Studio monitors typically aim for a flat response, but most barely make an acceptable approximation. And then we're not even discussing phone and tv speakers or the fact that a flat response for pure tones doesn't necessarily translate to one for complex sounds.
> It could paradoxically increase the value of human connection in music consumption.
My prediction/fear is that it will remove incentives to make music "manually", and thus lead to a decline in all aspects of the music industry, starting at spending, and then continue to teachers to instrument makers to artists. And that will make music a very elitist hobby, and stifle further development. We'll get stuck in LLM variations over All I want for Last Christmas.
> Plenty of people have known how to use em dashes
Plenty? I don't think it's that many. And knowing how to use them, doesn't mean they would actually use them. In my experience, em dashes are mainly found in academic literature. Chances that an em dash in a new text comes from an LLM are pretty high.
Your use of it is dubious, I think. Commas would serve equally well --or better-- since it's a simple conjunction, not an interjection.
Markdown is ubiquitous in the kinds of places Hacker News visitors also tend to visit, like GitHub, various ticketing and project management systems like Jira, note takers like Obsidian and Notion (or an approximation of Markdown).
I've used `--` for years in place of an em-dash, which markdown renders as an actual em-dash.
MacOS had it even earlier. I think it's because there's not a mature UI framework out there. They come, have their moment in the spotlight, and are replaced. There's also a ton of them. And they are often written by a very small group of people without deeper understanding of ergonomics, and don't live long enough to get this level of attention. You should be glad if it still gets bug fixes after 2 years.
There is no model capable of simulating the universe either.
I also wonder what such an observation would have to look like. Observations per se are unique and recorded and therefore can be reconstructed via trivial computation. Which brings us to the laws of physics. You may believe that they are utterly wrong and the universe is deterministic after all, but then the burden of proof is upon you.
reply