Is 80% even that high? I thought the idea behind VC was to fund companies where 90% are doomed to fail, 9% might do okay, in order to cash in big on the 1% that have stellar success.
What's your point besides whining about the general state of "delevopers", whoever that is? Are you volunteering to take over maintenance of GNU Screen?
Really, the gall to complain about "laziness" when all you're doing is spreading negativity on a forum.
No, GNU screen is garbage software. I’ve used it over and over and feel better when I don’t have to. Because it’s lazy open source.
You reacted negatively to my opinion about a software I’ve used and react negatively to using. Screen is what’s propagated this negativity.
The world doesn’t revolve around me, but it doesn’t revolve around you either. You’re going to encounter opinions you don’t like. I’m going to encounter software I don’t like.
I’m off the hook for your real existence. I’m not going to tailor my opinions for every nobody I don’t have any real obligation to.
The dark forest theory makes for a great book premise, but it probably doesn't apply in real life simply because the distances are so far.
The universe is not a forest. It's a gigantic, empty ocean. The next, dangerous tribe is not lurking behind a bush 2 meters away, but is sitting on an island that's so far away it will take centuries to go there, if it is possible at all
Isn't that the point of the dark forest theory? It's not the fact that there is a dangerous tribe behind a bush it's more that you don't know if they're dangerous or not so you have to err on the side of caution - because you don't know if they're doing the same.
It's the whole chain of suspicion theory that it's safer to shoot first and then ask questions later because the speed you can communicate is the same speed you can mount an attack.
Yes, but the next bush is dozens of light years away. The analogy breaks down because the distances are different in quality.
The only reason why this becomes such a problem in the Three-Body-Problem is the existence of magic in that universe. Thinking protons, instant communication, folded dimensions, easy interstellar travel, it's all interesting speculation inspired by physics, but incompatible with our actual universe.
How do you know it's incompatible with the actual universe instead of our current understanding of the universe?
Take us for example, we're communicating instantly (for practical purposes) using thinking machines - how would that not seem like magic to someone thousands of years ago?
My point is, we don't know what the tribe have behind the bush. It's the equivalent of the Mayans wondering what's over that hill and then finding the Spanish with gunpowder, horses, and steel armour.
The only reason why we can't out sentient protons folded out of 28 microdimensions into our 3 macrodimensions is the same reason we can't rule out that our universe is actually the works of a giant hand puppet player called Zquaarx.
The problem is just - if any of what happens in 3BP was to actually happen, we would not have to be a little wrong (like Newton was in regard to celestial mechanics) but so wrong that it doesn't even make sense to apply what we know at all.
This is, by the way, the exact point of the first part of the first book: physicists discover that all off the known physics are completely wrong.
Why does the distance change the dynamic? So what if the species trying to exterminate you are 500 light years away, you think they should ignore it ?
Maximum travel speed of an extermination weapon in 100,000 years of of science may very much be impressive or even magical by today’s standards
The distance completely changes the dynamic. If I tell you there's a crazy axe murderer in your house, you should be afraid. If I tell you there's a crazy axe murderer on Venus, how afraid are you?
And unless we are completely wrong about physics, the maximum speed of a weapon will be the same as it today - very close to 1c.
Time does not matter. Space-faring civilizations can adapt their pace of life to the communication and exploration speeds or even live at multiple speeds. They are likely energy and resource-bound: within the same theory Dyson sphere is a risk, so they can only consume a fraction of locally available energy to remain unnoticed - meaning that it’s not the distance but energy consumption that will limit them.
I don't think I disagree on any of this, but is there any actionable advice in this post? I don't think I really understand what point the author tries to make.
Maybe it's advocating against overly clever but inscrutable code, but I think clean code does that better. Yes, "clean code" is underspecified, but so is CRISP. And I can turn that opening argument right around: who wants to write incorrect, unreadable, idiosyncratic, complicated or slow code?
> I don't think I disagree on any of this, but is there any actionable advice in this post?
I also think this article was buzzword-inspired and has no substance beyond that point. I mean, do you need a buzzword to argue you need to write correct code, readable code, idiomatic code, simple, and performant? It borders on the vaccuous nonsense.
Say what you want about Clean Code, but at least each and every single recommendation is actionable, has clear guidelines, a rationale, and verifiable output. This CRISP nonsense has none of that.
Software is mediocre today? You should have seen it back in the day. It was a brittle, arcane mess.
Software isn't as exciting any more, but that excitement isn't gone because newbs don't have to look up what -O stands for anymore. It's because it's wildly more reliable.
It's always a good idea to ask for a lawyer (and to demand that the embassy of your home country gets informed).
However, the consequences of not talking can vary wildly. In some countries, police might torture you. Some countries might hold silence against you or even punish you for withholding exculpatory information.
Also remember outside the US, there's limited to no protection against repeated prosecution. Only 50-ish countries have protections against "double jeopardy" written into their constitutions and there's lots of exclusions.
Italy is infamous for trying people over and over for the same offense until they get a conviction.
I think these are just slightly different approaches to the same goals of carceral malfeasance. You don't need to try someone more than once if you can torture a confession out of them. You don't need to torture a confession out of someone if you can try them as many times as you want.
Cops and prosecutors will use the tools available to them, the specifics of the tools varying a lot by local history and governance traditions.
Italy does have protection from repeated prosecution as a fundamental right (not least due to the directly binding charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).
And as the US population currently finds out, what's written in a constitution is not worth much when there is inadequate rule of law (and the US constitution offers comparatively few protections as is).
When I started using the WWW in 01992 the majority of Web users were probably using text-based browsers, and specifically Lynx, because that was what the University of Kansas was using for its campuswide information service (CWIS). Mosaic didn't exist yet, and most people accessing the internet were using either dumb terminals like I was (typically in my case a VT-100 or CIT-101 clone of it) or dialup terminal emulators like Procomm+.
I want to to be charitable, but still: the idea that media company invest as much money as they possibly can into creating media, and thus anti-piracy measures would have any impact at all on the amount or quality of art created is just ridiculous.
Especially if you talk about abandoned media. Do you really think not selling old TV shows on dvd is a way to finance new art?
It also always lead to the same downward spiral of prosecutors complaining that the data they need to investigate drug trade is right there, but they can only access it for terrorism reasons, so why not add drug trade to the list of exceptions. Repeat with homicide, then fraud, all the way down to traffic infractions.
Am I way off with my numbers there?
reply