Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | wruza's comments login

I had a conversation with my colleague recently on this. We quickly got lost in this complex topic, but what we managed to recognize was that a large part of "success" phenomenon (here, locally) is just a replacement for a social stability and respect. Atomized society loses big chunks of what makes people happy and sure about their position. And having this is much better than e.g. owning an expensive car. But when everyone around gets constantly gaslighted by success and the role of Money, including relatives or potential friends/spouses, it's hard to row against this current. We live in a pretty unstable environment and it requires much more than just a stable money to insure yourself from taking part in this nonsense, sort of a paradoxical feedback loop. I wish I were that guy who has his average successless life planned ahead, but I'm not assigned this privilege.

Yeah, it turns out we live in a society after all.

Be careful with fundamental framework imports, some of them may fetch `armed_conflict` as a dependency. It is known for numerous undefined behaviors, which may corrupt your logic (fragile base class problem) and make it non-functional.

That's how I stop myself every time a desire to buy a guitar shows up. I'd like to play some solos from Ten Years After, Iron Maiden, or Dire Straits, but then I realize that this will take forever to learn, and my middle age issues wouldn't help with that either.

There is an image of features and benefits in the middle of the article. When I read it, it reminds me these landings with bullet points from "benefits" column: Get more done, Focus on what matters most, Start saving time today, No commitment, Stay on track. This is exactly what makes me confused about what the product is and why I would need it. But if you replace it with items from "features" columns, it becomes much clearer: A to-do list, With priorities, Simple setup, Cancel anytime, Has status updates. If I get it right, the author suggests providing benefits instead of features. Well, this doesn't work for me and for many others, based on previous discussions about vague marketing points like "start being effective today" and similar formulas. They could mean anything, and your problem structure may not match it. E.g. you need tags on your existing todos badly and the product doesn't have them. How could it make you more effective today?


If that's insane, why not share all your keys and passwords in your profile? It's just numbers. A footage of what you're doing in your room is just a number. Even entire you are a number, to some precision, under some angles.

The key fact here is that numbers are just the means of content delivery in a digital world. To be clear, personally I'm not fond of Copyright status quo, but this particular logic makes zero sense.


No. Keys, passwords, all of that data is private. Not shared. It's not like I'm publishing this data for the whole world to see and then trying to regulate access to it. And if I do publish anything, I will do so with the understanding that once it's out there it's out of my control. Complete opposite of what these copyright people want which is public data that they are still able to control.

In cryptography there should be exactly one copy of a private key in the entire universe. When your keys leak due to a mistake or whatever, you invalidate it and make a new one, you don't sue anyone who might have a copy in order to get them to delete it.


By talking about privacy you clearly present that you are aware of and agree with the concept of the law. Once you're on the street it's also out of control, but we have some enforced rules of behavior on them, so you don't get murdered for your keys. Copyright contract isn't any different than any other law, and numbers and their copy-ability have nothing to do with that, because you also have natural murderability, which someone could freely exercise. It's a contract, not the law of nature, which you must respect. If you think otherwise and still expect relative safety on the street, isn't that just a one-sided view?

The social contract behind copyright used to be we'd pretend the works of creators are artificially scarce so that they could make their money for a few years. Then the work would enter the public domain.

When was the last time you ever saw that happen? Some work you grew up with enter the public domain? These companies have already made untold fortunes, several times over. So why doesn't it happen?

They altered the deal. Unilaterally. The money people paid them? They used it to hire lobbyists to change the law and rob people of their public domain rights. These monopolistic protections were meant to be limited, they had an expiration date. The corporations managed to extend copyright duration to the point it might as well be infinite. There exists a public domain but no work ever actually ascends to this mythical place. Fair use? Nobody without an army of lawyers would ever dare try for fear of being sued.

Is this the social contract you want people to respect? The one where they get everything and we get nothing? You say my view is one-sided? These corporations are the most one-sided monopolists there are.

The second people stop pretending artificial scarcity is real, it will be the end of them. Look at how Sci-Hub is shaking up the academic journals. Their end literally can't come soon enough.


I agree with all of these questions and points, this is a huge problem and not "just numbers" argumentation anymore. Also, you're speaking only of a "hot" part of this market, corporations and patent trolls. Copyright is otherwise fine, especially if you want to sell your software yourself, even if it doesn't claim any patents. Why wouldn't I respect e.g. blizzard who gifted me with starcraft, or rake in grass for jets-n-guns, or some saas whose guys worked hard but leaked their "numbers" to the internet somehow. You can't just throw them out with the bathwater.

The Great Gatsby just entered the public domain last year. The whole system stopped for many years, nothing was entering the public domain, and then just last year IIRC it started up again.

But for the most part you are right.


It's different from culture. A culture makes everyone think in a similar way, there is one role: a participant of it. A corporation doesn't have to make everyone think the same, because it has many roles and written processes and KPIs which modulate anyone taking a role into a gear that rotates accordingly to the big schema. Corporations may have culture and it may be definitive, but it's not only that.

You should just google the definition of culture. Lots of work has been done to study culture at numerous levels from nations to corporations to small communities. It's called anthropology.

If you're actually curious, you should actually read papers and studies. This HN trend of ignorantly waxing philosophically about some topic adds no value to anyone's mind.


I'm not actually curious about definitions out there. And it's not HN trend, it's me. I see and experience both everyday cultures and everyday corporations, whatever meaning these words have for me, and compare them to each other. It doesn't require anything special beyond comparison skills. If you don't agree, fine, if you don't want to message a key mistake I maybe made, okay. If you want to take a complex definition and stretch it over a non-phd one to get my non-phd answer, okay. But you should know that patronizingly referencing to "lots of work" never works in a discussion or as an explanation. Maybe there is a work on such discussions, if you actually care.

But anyway, I just googled it:

- the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively

- the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society

- all the ways of life including arts, beliefs and institutions of a population that are passed down from generation to generation

- an umbrella term which encompasses the social behavior and norms found in human societies, as well as the knowledge, beliefs, arts, laws, customs, capabilities, and habits of the individuals in these groups

It has little in common with what I described, namely written (managed, on purpose, situational) processes and KPIs, which force people to act as they do, and are not inherent to them.


If you have a specific interest, you should just research it. The world is a very big place and lots of smart people have already gathered evidence to answer questions about pretty much anything. Talking on a forum is fun but collectively, we're idiots and we're not going to teach you much of anything.

It's great that you have questions, but you actually have to follow it up with research and learning if you care. From the comments you posted, I get the impression you haven't spent 1 hour googling answers to your questions. That sends me the impression, you don't really care, you just like hearing yourself think.


Maybe, but it's more complicated than that. I was pissed off yesterday, sorry if my tone sounded worse than it should have been.

My reluctance against your suggestion is based not on my interest or lack thereof^. I've had this sort of discussions many times before, and usually people split into two categories: those who correct or argue directly, in short and precise argument, and those who refer to unnamed sources throughout the thread. From the first group you learn quickly, and consistently, and they leave no aftertaste, even if you feel "defeated", because their argument sends a strong educational message. The second is a potential time spoil. I've read "some works" before, and in most cases (or it's perceived as such) it turned out that that guy meant just a slightly different meaning, or an interpretation of that author, which is different from a common sense around a specific term, or simply they missed a big chunk of a message and pressed on a non- point, or were primarily just a narcissist troll. I can remember the last time I constructively "just went" and read a book on some Buddhism downstream, after an argument with one guy who claimed that it's very rational and isn't just a cool story (the topic was that one of their prophets arrived in my country). I downloaded it, read a preface and 20 minutes later it already narrated magic forest experiences and spirits who messaged truth to the prophet. Same story with Islam followers, sometimes they are talking nonsense and refer to Qur'an, which I've already read in seven translations, including interpreting one, with cancelled ayat remarks, and often I know surah and ayat range they're talking about right away. (Edit: I just noticed that both cases are about religion, which is known to be "hot", but it doesn't end with religion, it just happens to bring brightest examples.)

I'm not saying that you're not right, but it's statistically nonsensical to follow your vague suggestions to go read on a field. That is why it will never work, and you will think that these lazy careless STEM guys portray some trend. It's a trust issue, not an issue with my desire (or lack of it, which is the case) to learn something regardless of who my opponent is. I simply can't trust few hours of my life to every other guy on the internet, if they don't provide a good enough argument to do that.

^ which I already claimed non-existent, it feels like you don't like to read comments at all


This is just unfortunately the default state for STEM-trained individuals (disclaimer: I am one of these).

If you live in apartments, how often have you seen your neighbors do laundry or bring home groceries?

Reminds me a real story where a guy found a USB stick nearby a city building. It contained a shivering warning about your neighbors. The stick owner lived in that building and some day asked himself this question and tried to watch what his neighbors do routinely. He followed some of them and found out that they simply get on some buses, ride in circles and get back. It looked very confusing to him. Then one Sunday evening he looked out of his window and noticed that in most windows people are staring at something. He felt to decide to go out and see what they are looking at. When he did it, he realized, they all were looking at him! Feeling very uneasy he returned to his room. Maybe they knew he spied on some of them, but how, why? Few weeks later all that was almost forgotten like a bad dream. The guy was returning from his job and when he went upstairs, he heard a conversation seemingly mentioning him from one of the rooms adjacent to where he lived in. He decided to go closer to that room and heard an usual conversation from a family with kids, they were laughing and speaking as usual families do. But the door wasn't completely shut — they must have forgotten to close it. He decided to peek into the gap, and God that was a big mistake. What he had seen instead of a family apartment was a completely empty room and four people sitting in it back-to-back, chatting and laughing with absolutely calm faces. He was stunned for a moment, but the hair stirred on a guy's head, when one of them noticed him watching. He rushed into his apartment and shut his door. When he finally braced himself to look into peephole, everyone was there. All his neighbors stood there with calm faces, looking right into the peephole, waiting for him to get out.

The last message on a stick said they cut all the wires and the cellphone has no battery. The only message poor guy could send from.his laptop to the world was this text file on a USB stick.


"True story? I couldn't swear to every detail but it's certainly true that it is a story."

Is this original creepypasta? Google search doesn't return anything.

Yes, adapted by me from memory for HN readers, probably missing/changing lots of details.

https://mrakopedia.net/wiki/Окна_домов

Translate link:

https://mrakopedia-net.translate.goog/wiki/Окна_домов?_x_tr_...


That's terrifying. I'm reminded of one of my favorite books, There Is No Year by Blake Butler:

"There was a family living in a house. There was a father, a mother, and a son. The family all looked tired. Nothing ever really happened. The father drove places and got lost and walked around the house. The mother mostly cleaned and worried. The son would stand and sit and stand."

https://www.librarything.com/work/10387677


While others saying 50T DB is relatively normal, personally I can't imagine myself dealing with that sort of data which is always online. If I were them, I'd ask myself, could we archive this data into split chunks? Is this archive even required to be online? What is the size of a subset that has actuality? And so on. Of course they have answers to that and they are generally "no", but my imagination just stops here.

Some time ago when I studied bitcoin ledger structure, I was confused about how it does sum up all transactions to get the balance so quickly, like we in accounting usually do, with the help of some period caching, which is another point of failure and maintenance. Bitcoin is a large enough database to not do that easily. Few docs later I realized that it doesn't do this:

  mining -> A 1
  A -> B 0.2
  (sum(A) == 0.8)
And instead it does this:

  mining -> A 1
  A -> (B 0.2; A 0.8)
  (last(A) == 0.8)
No sums required, all balances are checked by essentially "lookup the latest appearance in a db", where lookup also involves some merkle trees optimization, which I didn't understand enough to remember.

> I was confused about how it does sum up all transactions to get the balance so quickly, like we in accounting usually do

For what it's worth, in a system design context, this is called event sourcing (in more general terms it's just a fold, though the idea of event sourcing doesn't preclude caching). I worked at a bank for a few years and this was how we calculated balances too.

> And instead it does this:

I don't quite follow you here. It does something distinct from either a fold or caching the current total? (Do you mean that each transaction encodes the resultant balance?)


Not the entire balance, because a single wallet may have many "inputs", but that's just an implementation detail, as far as I understand it.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction

If the input is worth 50 BTC but you only want to send 25 BTC, Bitcoin will create two outputs worth 25 BTC: one to the destination, and one back to you (known as "change", though you send it to yourself). Any input bitcoins not redeemed in an output is considered a transaction fee; whoever generates the block can claim it by inserting it into the coinbase transaction of that block.

I.e. any "input" is spent completely by a transaction and this makes it irrelevant to future calculations.

See also: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/13069/how-does-t...


See also "Why Is Every Movie Poster Orange and Blue?"

Another overused (imo) coloring technique is different color sources, often used in youtube videos and game interiors, like cyberpunk.


And sound tracks. Many soundtracks are made by the directors saying “make something that sounds like {scene from other movie}” and you get similar outcomes. Especially for trailers.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: