Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | login

Even very hot iron is not magnetic. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curie_temperature )

-----


Because someone in a tank is not afraid of someone with a slingshot (corporate legal department vs smalltime injured/sick/dying people.)

-----


Dilution is kind of like the company taking on debt -- it seems to be worse at face value, but looking deeper you can see that it is a tool that can be used to further increase or maintain value.

-----


You can do this on the fan tv ipad app.

-----


Laptops ate the desktop. Is that what you mean?

-----


Other way around. The analogy would be the desktop eating the laptop.

-----


Because the modifications are slight and still within the normal range of variation in the uninfected population.

-----


Yes, but it seems like it has effects simular to a slight depression on men. So it impacts quality of life, at least thats the impression I got. So even if it does not cause huge costs for the health care system or unability to function in life or work, it still seems strange to just ignore it. At least pregnant women are tested it seems.

-----


Toxo causes the brain to produce more dopamine. Dopamine is released in novel situations (i.e. Stumbling on scattered cash). Seritonin is released during consummatory behaviors (i.e. Eating, sex, etc). While most of the released dopamine and seritonin released is part of private conversations between neurons some of the molecules leak out and diffuse through the brain. These background levels of dopamine influence the brain more globally and the brain uses the ratio of dopamine to seritonin as a measure of 'status' meaning 'of how much there is to get (dopamine), how much am I getting (seritonin)'

Lots of dopamine and little seritonin influence behavior in a lot of subtle ways. It puts reaction times on a hair trigger which makes movements quick but spastic (improves video games, destroys handwriting). Increases the likelihood to escalate quickly when threatened (get away from my stuff!). Increases libido. Mild OCD type behaviors. Etc, etc, etc.

Women seem wired to pick up these clues and avoid low status men. On the flip side. Makes great programmers.

-----


That was quite interesting. The only thing that doesn't fit well with my life experience is the "high libido" part. The high dopamine crowd seems to be less interested in sex than the average male, in my impression.

-----


Look at some of the side effects of dopamine agonists used to treat Parkinson's disease. Hyper sexuality and gambling addictions are common. But I'm not going to argue with your life experience. However there is a difference between desire and expression of that desire which many learn to supress.

Dopamine also increases exploratory behaviors; suppresses oxytocin release (cuddle hormone) and reduces social bonding; increases the ability to form memories; reduces the ability to forget. Think the BBS version of Sherlock Holmes.

-----


> The red/green highlight is enough.

For people who can see red and green.

-----


Indeed, there are many who can't distinguish these colors easily, especially males (~5%).

Better off using reddish-purple and bluish-green, and also different fonts to indicate changes. That would be a kindness.

See http://jfly.iam.u-tokyo.ac.jp/color/#assign

-----


Whoa, I never thought about that. The colorblindness thing is exactly why we haven't tried to remove the +s and -s, but if there are indeed colors that we could attempt to use, that'd be awesome.

-----


Doing both things allows the maximum number of users to benefit. I'm pretty sure that's what you were getting at.

The diff convention of marking inserted and deleted lines by + and - provides a "channel" of info showing text comparisons. If the + lines were also blue-green and the - lines also red-violet then there's two channels conveying the same information.

Using colors or not, we'd definitely keep the +/- markers.

The highlighting methods are distinct, but line information is the same. The +/- notation will still be useful on a monochrome monitor or printed page. On a spiffy new 2500x1600 display, I'd personally prefer the color output to quickly find what's changed.

-----


Wow, thanks for the handy link! I have always wanted a good explanation to provide for quick posts. I created a short URL for easy reference: tinyurl.com/colorassign

-----


It is more like 10% (depending on the source, e.g. wikipedia provides 8% for males)

-----


Certainly depends on the source. But I believe you are about right. I wrongly trusted memory for the stat. The figure I used applies to a subset, green perception impaired males, which is around 5-6%, depending on level of impairment considered.

As you note, including the red perception impaired adds ~2% of males. And about 0.5% of females are also color-vision impaired. Overall it is around 9% of the US population.

The prevalence of color-blindness varies by racial/ethnic criteria, and between groups male/female ratio varies quite a bit. Color vision is a very fascinating subject.

-----


Or be able to tell left from right.

-----


>couldn't think of a way that did not end up using reflection

The builtin decoders (eg, json) use reflection. You don't lose any of the benefits of static typing as you are still decoding into your statically-typed object.

I would separate form parsing from object validation.

Use something like this: https://github.com/ajg/form to populate statically-typed go structs from form data, and then validate your objects.

-----


There is a speed hit to reflection, though, right?

Also, you do lose the benefit of static typing, for example, the following typo isn't picked up at compile time:

    type User struct {
        Name         string            `form:"nam"`
    }
Tags are rather ugly and don't scale to many options well. What happens when your ORM, form validation library, xml library, and json libraries each need a separate tag? That's a slight exaggeration but you could see how the apparent simplicity in the form example can quickly become anything but.

Heavy use of tags (and reflection) just makes me feel like you have to work around the language too much and I question whether you may as well just use Python, hence my original question.

I've done minimal work with Go, though, so perhaps I'm misinformed.

-----


You're example is not a static typing issue. It's a feature of the library that the struct field doesn't have to have the same name as the form field.

I think the issue is more of a DRY thing, which could maybe be fixed with something like:

    type User struct {
        FirstName string  `form:lowercase_hyphenated`
        LastName  string  `form:lowercase_hyphenated`
    }
This hypothetical syntax would instruct the library to look for the form fields "first-name" and "last-name".

-----


There is a speed hit to reflection. As for the tag issue: writing your own marshaler isn't actually a huge problem. I have been meaning to write my own json marshaler for a while. I personally find the solution much more paletable than many other ways of marshaling in and out of json.

-----


There's a significant speed hit to reflection, but it's going to get lost in the noise if you're making HTTP requests.

-----


We have a Federal system, though states' rights have been weakened over time. A US State has sovereignty that the Feds may not impede on. The boundary between state sovereignty and national sovereignty has been contentious throughout history. States rights are good because it allows California to be a leader in emissions laws (example.) States rights are bad because they make inter-state commerce and travel more perilous.

-----


And yet the legal age of drinking is magically 21 in the entire country. That one really makes my head spin.

-----


You caught where he said, '... though states rights have been weakened over time..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_...

"The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 (23 U.S.C. ยง 158) was passed on July 17, 1984 by the United States Congress. It punished every state that allowed persons below 21 years to purchase and publicly possess alcoholic beverages by reducing its annual federal highway apportionment by ten percent."

-----


Hence the name 'United States', and not Germany or Canada.

-----


Odd that you would pick those two countries as your examples. Both are federations comprised of a number of separate sovereign governments. Or, for that matter, the United States of Mexico shares that trait of its name with America. (An actual counterexample would be France, a unitary state.)

The Constitution of Canada far more clearly lays out what is and is not the role of the Federal and Provincial governments than the US 10'th amendment does for states rights. Canadian provinces, then, are sovereign themselves (tho not independent). The federal government can't decide it doesn't like an Ontario law and block it any more than it could an American law.

The States of the United States then sound far less like united, sovereign states than the members of some federations without United in their names.

-----


Canadian federal government has much more power than US feds can ever imagine to have. The criminal law is entirely up to the Canadian Parliament, and this is highly unlikely to ever fly in US. Further more, the courts have held that Canadian federal government can spend its money any way it likes to influence provincial policy. While the US Supreme court has allowed some percentage of money to be tied to state legislation (viz 21 year drinking age), it has also struck down laws which forces states to take up new spending or lose all the earlier grant from federal government (viz Medicare expansion in Obamacare). Each US state maintains its own Constitution and individual Judiciary, while the Canadian Supreme Court sits on top of any case of controversy in Canada,

US is much more federal than Canada, except may be for legal fiction where each Canadian province has their own relation to Crown. While Canadian federal government cannot outright strike out a state law, they almost never have to, as the power of Canadian federal government are almost endless where it really matter viz. criminal law, tax and spending.

-----


Federal Republic of Germany. Just `Germany' is roughly equivalent to saying just `America'. As an example, education is in the purview of the German states. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_Germany

Canada also has a federal system. See eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federalism

-----


To me, this argument is a strong defense of the "self", but does not address the "free" part at all. It is like saying that a rock is free to weigh more than a marshmallow because of the complicated history that lead it to being this rock.

-----


Exactly my thought as well.

I believe we keep telling us stories about a "free will" because we're afraid of that thought because we misinterpret it. Most people answer unreflected things like "that would be like living in a prison". Also we have learned to judge everything and everyone. How can we expect people to completely drop all kinds of judgement?

-----


Why would we stop judging?

-----


Not sure I understand your question correctly.

We should stop judging.

Because nobody has been able to show "free will" is more than just another belief (as in religion) and it is therefor no basis for rational discussion. And if free will does not exist, our concepts of "merit" (on the positive side) or "guilt" (on the negative side) are worthless and should be abolished.

That's why there should be no judging at all.

(Note: No judging does not mean nobody goes to prison for crime. It simply means we must redefine "punishment" as "a neutral sanction" or better: "protection from happening again".)

-----


> We should stop judging.

If there is no free will and we still judge, we cannot not judge!

-----


Yes, we can!

All there needed to be was for the handful of initial variables that were set at the "beginning of our universe" to have such values that their interaction over time would lead us to rational thinking and therefor our understanding that there is no "free" will.

Simply put: If I explain to you why free will is an illusion and you stop judging, then it wasn't a "free" will. It was a cause-and-effect situation.

-----


You should try and get implication and conclusion sorted out. I think you slipped in a negation somewhere.

If there is no free will and I stop judging, then yes, obviously we can stop judging.

But if there is no free will and after your explanation I still judge, then no, we cannot.

-----


Let's put it like this:

My explanation would be only 1 variable in your system (out of an infinity of others, if you assume that you can always continue to "zoom in").

Now, if that 1 variable does anything to your decisions or not depends on all the other variables as well, i.e.: You may have gotten a very religious education which may lead you to accept beliefs put forth by other as "the truth", without questioning. Since one major point of religion is "free will", I'm not sure "my explanation" would do anything to your decision making.

-----


If there is no free will, then all we do is predetermined and arguing is pointless, because, by definition, it cannot change anything because everything is predetermined.

-----


The arguing is just 1 variable in the system. It was bound to happen because it was caused by other variables (i.e. us being online, someone posting the article, etc.) and it will interact with other variables to lead to some amount of change. It's not something that "we control". (Our brains do, but they are the result of other variables, such as our genome, environment, etc.)

-----


I don't get that - with predetermination, there are no variables at all. Its all a mechanism set in motion at the big bang, turning inexorably toward ultimate entropy. We're just some predestined middle state right now, with no choice and no say.

-----


All that would mean is that you were incorrect before when you had some mystical idea of what choice meant. Choices still matter (in the most literal sense: they are material). If complete determinism is true, the choices we make and the things we say are part of the causal stream that leads to other actions, even if that stream could only ever go one way.

On top of that, how would choice make more sense in a random universe?

-----


Mystical? I think the meaning of 'choice' is well-understood. I believe philosophers have reinvented the meaning so they can put it into their wholly imaginary framework of doubletalk.

-----


If you mean choice as something external to whatever deterministic/indeterministic framework we use to understand physical systems, it is mystical. If you mean choice as in "I wanted to do something and then I did it", which is the commonly understood meaning of choice, there is literally no conflict with determinism.

-----


Now how do you stop judging without free will?

-----


That's an easy one:

If somebody explains you the reason why judging does not make any sense and you understand it and apply it to your life, then it wasn't "free will". It was causality - you're doing it because of a "variable" (the explanation) that was part of your "system". Obviously, there is a huge number of other variables participating in your decision, not just one, and you could track them on a micro level (molecular) as well as on an macro level (i.e. your family, friends, wealth, etc.).

-----


But without free will nobody can decide to tell you something and influence your future decisions. If there is no free will then watching the universe over time is just like playing back a movie, maybe with some unpredictable plot twists due to randomness. Me writing this comment was predetermined - at least with some probability - since the big bang. All the things humans have done, from fighting wars to writing all the books to inventing and building all the human made things in the world, are predetermined. And while I think that there is no free will trying to imagine that everything around me is the result of a mindless process is more than my poor brain can do and therefore in everyday life I just keep pretending I have free will.

-----


> If there is no free will then watching the universe over time is just like playing back a movie, maybe with some unpredictable plot twists due to randomness.

Yes, rational thinking dictates exactly this conclusion (the apparent randomness being introduced by our current understanding of quantum physics).

> And while I think that there is no free will [...] in everyday life I just keep pretending I have free will.

Well, Rome wasn't built in one day. Our whole culture was built upon the illusion of "free will" (same goes for other beliefs like magic, gods, etc). It's a good exercise to remind oneself about this when we get all worked up over something or somebody.

-----


I call hypocrisy - convincing folks there is no 'free will' has got to be the ultimate in fooling oneself!

-----


I don't convince, I argue.

If the logic has a flaw, please let me know, I'm interested in being as close to the "truth" as possible.

-----


The flaw is, what's the point? If its true, it has no effect. If its not, your arguing a falsehood.

-----


> If its true, it has no effect.

As discussed, it would mean, for example, that we cannot judge anyone (and at the same time claim to be rational).

To give an example: The death penalty should no longer exist, because it is solely "justified" by judgement along the lines of "person X is evil and therefor doesn't deserve to live". There are no evil people, only people who do what they have to do, given the variables in "their system". That means there should be no "punishment", but emotionally neutral measures to prevent the suffering from happening again (i.e. locking the person up). It's pretty clear to me that a much more humane society will be the result of this understanding. And who wouldn't want that?

Edit: "rational" in the sense of "logical".

-----


If there is no free will, then it is spurious to claim anyone is 'rational'. That loses all meaning.

-----


> If there is no free will, then it is spurious to claim anyone is 'rational'. That loses all meaning.

No, it doesn't. I mean, the rational actor model is evidently false for lots of other reasons, but its a purely mechanistic model but for the utility function (on whose nature it is completely neutral), so rationality is just as compatible with the non-existence of free will as it is with the existence of free will (in fact, rationality requires either that there be no free will or that it be confined entirely within the utility function.)

-----


If the rock told me that it intuitively perceives itself as being free to weight more than a marshmallow (and I didn't otherwise have reason to believe I was hallucinating), then I would have little trouble conceding that the rock is free to weigh more than a marshmallow.

-----

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Y Combinator | Apply | Contact

Search: