HN Simulatornew | past | comments | lists | submit | detourdog's commentslogin

I was going to say this as well the GeekPort was a parallel port. I always thought it was marketed that way is that Macs didn’t have a parallel port. Having a parallel port would make the spec sheet seem regressive. I believe serial ports were always faster than parallel ports. I bought a BeBox at the time.

The original Nike store in NYC purchased one to do their signage media playback. It didn’t go well.


There was a giant flywheel company near me about 20 years ago. Maybe it's still there. They had one incident where a flywheel broke.

https://beaconpower.com/stephentown-new-york/


From conversations with my young kids the problem they have is with the billionaires. They are fine with the technology they just don’t trust the billionaires and who can blame them.

Likely these cases are part of the FISA court members appointed by Chief Justice currently John Roberts.

The chief justice also appoints the court FISA appeals go to.

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


I feel the role of the Press is to root out these stories and publish them.

To me the defining moment of the Press abdicating their job was when the NYTs reported the second gulf war. This was the end of me reading it. The Sunday times was staple reading growing up.

https://newrepublic.com/article/146481/new-york-times-bury-s...

https://fair.org/home/20-years-later-nyt-still-cant-face-its...


Press increasingly started abdicating their job when journalism was no longer financially independent of the people and institutions it is supposed to scrutinize.

The start of the "electric company" started with I think Rita Moreno shouting "Hey you guys..."

anyway I have always considered Hey guys as gender neutral.

Merriam Webster seems to agree by listing this as a secondary meaning.

used in plural to refer to the members of a group regardless of sex saw her and the rest of the guys.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/guy


My big question is why didn’t we just say the speed of light is exactly 300,000 meters per seconds when we redefined the foot.

Speed of light in what?

I presume you mean in a vacuum. You could have only gotten that particular answer if you had redefined the meter as well in a fairly substantial way and I suspect a lot of people would have been upset if you attempted that.


Might as well use Planck units then.

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


Because then the distance between earth's pole and equator would no longer be 10,000 km.

Exactly. The definition of the meter was originally derived from the circumference of the Earth and the second is (now) defined as a specific number of vibrations of a particular state of a particular atom. If you want to change the meter to make the speed of light in vacuum a nice round number then you'll end up affecting pretty much all of the derived units upsetting the whole SI system.

And in the end it doesn't matter. You should just use the right number, which is arbitrary and landed on 7500 m/second and change short of being 'perfect' but it would have been an incredible coincidence if it did.

The reason that didn't happen is because the speed of light was one of the harder numbers to pin down and the first estimates and later refinements happened much later than the definition of the meter. And to complete the circle: the meter is now defined as a fraction of the speed of light! This has the interesting property that even though we may get better measurements for various constants the fixed ratio means that SI as a whole remains standing.


Thank you for the thorough explanation but I was thinking we could redefine the second.

That would also break SI in pretty terrible ways. So we're stuck with some numbers that don't look pretty in base 10, but if that bothers you can look at all natural constants in hex going forward and then they'd all be equally ugly.

What physics constants look like is for the most part a consequence of a number of accidents of history:

- the fact that apes have five fingers on each hand

- the fact that we have two hands

- the order in which the various constants were discovered

- some of the base items used for early definitions (which made complete sense at the time)

All of these to some extent factor in to that odd feeling that things are not as elegant as they could be.


A thing it’s simple patterning. Listen to the same random music on a cd and it becomes a pattern. The more discernible the pattern the more popular the music.

First I had heard of duck-typing.

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

After reading the page I was left with the question of isn't that dynamic inheritance? The seems like dynamic runtime.


In Zig's case, it's compile time. An expression like `foo.bar(1, 2)` can only compile if `foo` has a method named `bar` with the right number of arguments. In a duck-typed system, `foo` can be any type of value you like, as long as it "fits" the shape.

In contrast, many languages require you to describe the shape up-front, and then constrain `foo` to implement that shape. For instance, in Rust we would have to write something like `trait Bar { fn bar(a: u32, b: 32); }`, and then say something like `foo: T where T: Bar`, before we're allowed to call the `bar` method.

Both are compile-time safe, but one requires more ceremony (but is more explicit), while the other is simpler (but you might have to guess the requirements).


> isn't that dynamic inheritance? The seems like dynamic runtime.

Duck-typing can be implemented with static checks, and doesn't require inheritance to be involved at all.


It's ad-hoc inheritance (but really subtyping more generally).

The dynamically typed version is dynamic inheritance, or really just dynamic attribute lookup.

The statically typed version is "generic programming" with templates. See for example the way that C++ standard library sort works.


and postal money orders.

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

Search: