Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | newsoul2019's comments login

Realistically we take these beautiful designs and wrap them in Otter Boxes (and similar)


Seems that today's beauty comes at the cost of fragility and repairability. And perhaps worse, just as you said, also at the cost of not being able to see it behind the sturdy phone covers many end up using.


> In fact, if we delay until the distant future, or even 50 years or so, such an effort probably will become impossible. This is because us humans will consume the Earth's non-renewable energy and mineral resources almost completely within the next 50-100 years, severely reducing our discretionary income for costly activities such as space travel.

I wonder when that was written...


Likely around 2013 by the Wayback Machine.


Makes me think of the Gell-Mann amnesia effect.


Understand the sentiment, but can anyone be sure that Airbus isn't doing something similar.


Irrelevant. If Airbus is doing the same, then they are also dead to me.


Dead meaning you won't fly any more? (beneficial for the environment)


Dead meaning that, in my opinion, they have sold their soul to Satan. Boeing was previously at the apex of engineering. The 747 was a respectable achievement in 1968. The MAX debacle has exposed a catastrophic fall in engineering standards.


Er, that does not leave too many options if you wish to fly...


Yes it means I would be forced to fly on a shitty plane built by junior engineers. Living life in the danger zone.


Interesting - a completely hypothetical whataboutism


LOL - yeah what about China? If they were making commercial aircraft they might be doing the same thing!


They are, such as the C919 and ARJ21.

With Boeing trashing its reputation and Airbus sitting on an enormous backlog I can envisage Chinese airliners making inroads in Africa and Asia. But to do so they need to make solid, dependable products; they can't scrimp or cut corners in pursuit of short-term profit.


I am pretty sure Google Drive does this as well.


Perfect for mining bitcoin


Not really; if you find a block it will mostly likely have been beaten by someone else's block by the time yours reaches most nodes...unless there is a Saturn based side chain or similar.


This will sound crazy, and I'm not suggesting the consumer would deal with it directly, but I think we'll need coins for each planetary body and another one for the solar system that has a much longer block time. More scales would be useful, but these are the minimum. Repeat for each star, with MilkyWayCoin having an absurd block time.


It depends if the "most nodes" are on Mercury or on Earth.


You may be right (about Windows) but I am not going to pay $100 (for a new Windows license) or so to find out.

edit for clarity


FWIW I was a die hard Linux user for ten years, and I usually never ran a desktop environment in favor of tmux and vim. About a year ago I started a new job at a dotnet shop and had to switch to Windows. I dreaded it at first, and I still do have to fight the OS to preserve my privacy, but overall I am loving it. Vscode with the new wsl extensions and vim bindings is the best IDE I've ever used, and the new terminal emulator is amazing. The upcoming version of WSL will be shipping a full linux kernel, and having the software library of Windows with the productivity of Linux is a win win as far as I'm concerned. Using so much closed source software makes me feel yucky, but I've never been more productive. YMMV.


You can just download a trial from MSFT if you want to try it.

https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/downloads/virt...


You can buy online-only keys for about 10€ on amazon. They work well, although they are not transferrable to a new pc.


Those cheap Amazon keys are still not legal, so you might as well pirate Windows


Thank you! I hate people on Reddit who advocate for those cheap keys. If you don't follow the license you are pirating it. Simple as that. Now whether or not piracy is okay is a whole different issue.


Pirating Windows is a lot riskier (think downloading random unlock.exe files) while the key gives you a fully working functional official Windows without any hassles.


Does the universe require perception in order for there to be existence?

If so, does the perception require consciousness?

Is consciousness constrained to the universe, or orthogonal to it?


No, all you need is to observe things. Be it a simple detector or conscious observer, you've extracted information from the environment. The observation implies existence, what observed it is inconsequential.


So is entropy really about energy, or information? Or is there any difference.


Statistics.

Imagine any given configuration of the universe. Of all possible changes to a new configuration (think Levenshtein distance) from that configuration there’s a large set of “equivalent” (in the aggregate) configurations, let’s call those the future. There is a smaller set of configurations which we would ascribe some special character too, such as being somewhat orderly let’s call those the past. the set of possible configurations encoding a broken pot are larger then the set encodings an unbroken one. But the state brokenness of the pot is entirely a subjective things, without that interpretation of the encoding they are equally random

Now if you are a “process”, a kind of pattern that can be identified as the same entity in several of those configurations, it would seem necessary for that pattern to follow some rule in which most of those “future” configurations would retain its unique characteristic.

So if you throw a dart into this mess of configurations and hit such an entity, selecting any direction to move from that point at random would most likely give you a configuration with higher entropy, but in which this particular pattern would be retained.

Some patterns would have a higher chance than other of being traceable along those changes, perhaps they encode a kind of anticipation of likely futures yielding a rules set which a higher likelihood of existing from one configuration to the next. Let’s call this patterns “living”


I'm assuming existence as a premise to avoid circularity. I'm actually more interested in why the universe isn't static, i.e. the idea that state change and the arrow of time might arise from evaluative processes as the fundamental causal structure.

When it comes to the question of whether consciousness is orthogonal to existence. I'm inclined to the position that it's an emergent property of matter, in particular taking exception to human exceptionalism. I acknowledge this is sailing damn close to the Chinese Room argument.


> Does the universe require perception in order for there to be existence?

If you use big bang theory, the universe existed prior to observers perceiving it. So there was existence and no perception. Perception appears to have evolved out of existence. The story of the big bang is sort of neat. It looks like many fundamental particles didn't exist until the time was right for them to come into being.


> If you use big bang theory, the universe existed prior to observers perceiving it.

That would depend on the definition of perception. Does a nail perceive being struck by the hammer? To say otherwise would presume that humanity's form awareness is somehow special, and not simply a more complicated interaction between ourselves and the universe than is the nail's with the hammer.


I suspect you might be right, but it could water down the term. In such a case, everything is perceiving all the time.

I was using the more traditional definition of perception.


That's why physicists talk about interaction rather than perception.


That is exactly the intended sense of perception in my statement.

You have, er, nailed it


Given that perception is a material process in-and-of the universe itself, it all gets a bit circular.


That's what Java applets were supposed to be originally, they were supposed to run in a sandbox....


Not all sandboxes are created equal. Modern browsers have much better sandboxes than Java ever has had. OS level virtualization is even better.


If you read something like this [1], dated 1999, it seems like they had the right ideas. I guess it went wrong in the actual implementations.

[1] http://www.securingjava.com/chapter-two/chapter-two-2.html


By total coincidence, I was reading about Java sandbox exploits just a few days ago: http://phrack.org/papers/escaping_the_java_sandbox.html.

It feels to me (not a security guy!) like there was something fundamentally too complex here. I wonder if part of the problem is that unlike the browser, there's no natural boundary. JavaScript is was originally built to live in a small self-contained world with specific access to the outside. Java was built with features for writing applications that could touch the filesystem, redefine classes, and everything else. It was also supposed to make everything safe, but that led to complex checks everywhere to try to distinguish privileged from unprivileged code.


I flew around the Bay Area a bunch of times on my Amiga in FA/18 Interceptor, in the late 1980s

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18_Interceptor


Now that was a classic game. I played it a lot on my old A1200. Walk down memory lane!


I believe they are in EAI - Enterprise Application Integration space. Broadly speaking this is a "swiss army knife", if you want to take a CSV file from an FTP site and load it into a relational database, then do queries off a table and POST JSON to a webhook, It can do any of those things.


Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

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

Search: