foobarbazqux

12 ms·

61.
by foobarbazqux 13y ago
Have you never had a customer service representative politely tell you to go fuck yourself? When I was abused by my parents, it was never called for. As an adult, again and again I would create situations where I was obviously "in the
62.
by foobarbazqux 13y ago
> Fuck the police. There's this theory in psychotherapy called transference. Basically if you experience crappy situations as a child in which you are effectively powerless, then in later years similar situations end up provoking t
63.
by foobarbazqux 13y ago
They'll never make it illegal to be poor without a major overhaul of our financial system. The economy absolutely relies on people taking on more debt than they can handle, look what happened the last time that issue was addressed. Y
64.
by foobarbazqux 13y ago
On the bright side, forecasters that rely on computer models of massive systems often end up making horribly inaccurate predictions. For example, we usually get tomorrow's weather wrong.
65.
by foobarbazqux 13y ago
I wouldn't say that oil demand has peaked from looking at that graph. I'd say it took a big hit right around the time of the 2008 financial crash and is recovering along with the rest of the economy, or perhaps lagging somewhat.
66.
by foobarbazqux 13y ago
Yeah okay. Someone else pointed out FastISel.cpp. It's probably true that prettiness competes with performance.
67.
by foobarbazqux 13y ago
But you can't turn off codegen in a JIT compiler either, unless you're interpreting code, so that requirement doesn't fundamentally make GCC and LLVM impractical. It sounds like LLVM either doesn't have very many optimi
68.
by foobarbazqux 13y ago
There are many optimizations in GCC and LLVM. If you turn them all off you will compile fast and execute slow, and if you turn them all on you will compile slow and execute fast. You can do this on a per function / trace / trans
69.
by foobarbazqux 13y ago
The pessimistic view is that not needing to worry about empathy is good for making money. The optimistic view is that having what amounts to a public insurance policy baked into your economic system is good for making money. Probably both
70.
by foobarbazqux 13y ago
Science is made up of so many things that appear obvious after they are explained.
71.
by foobarbazqux 13y ago
Oh, I didn't mean "having a compiler" by "being able to compile source code into binaries". I meant having source code, having a compiler, and having a machine that will run the binaries you produce.
72.
by foobarbazqux 13y ago
Yes, for a (full, four freedoms) source license. I'm equating being able to compile source code into binaries with owning the means of production, where "owning" means "controlling" (which is what it usually means
73.
by foobarbazqux 13y ago
Yeah, it's more of an absolute split with proprietary software, except where vendors respond directly to customer needs and thus grant them indirect control. But, the amount of capital required to produce a binary of OS X or Windows is
74.
by foobarbazqux 13y ago
The structure of pure capitalism means the majority of people do not have a great deal of control. It's in the hands of the bourgeoisie, and so the people with capital are the people with control. If you have capital, you are a propr
75.
by foobarbazqux 13y ago
Yeah, I probably should have said communism. I only said socialism because I thought it would be received as less of an insult. Anyway, thanks for listening. You could also argue that the source code was the means of production (of binari
76.
by foobarbazqux 13y ago
I guess it depends on how closely you look at things.
77.
by foobarbazqux 13y ago
Just that the oppressed seek liberation. Some find it, some don't, but they all seek it. If they stop seeking it, they find liberation by becoming the oppressor, either by oppressing others or oppressing themselves.
78.
by foobarbazqux 13y ago
You didn't get the analogy, but I was being extremely terse, so I apologize. Your computer is the factory. The binaries running on your computer are the means of production. You use your factory to do office work, for example writing
79.
by foobarbazqux 13y ago
I'm a brilliant kid, but who cares, I had shitty parents. - A lot of people I know.
80.
by foobarbazqux 13y ago
ownership : means of production :: source code : binaries
81.
by foobarbazqux 13y ago
Copyleft seeks to ensure public ownership of the means of production.
82.
by foobarbazqux 13y ago
There's a third audience, those people who think capitalism and socialism each have their pros and cons. It's larger than you think: since we find the for/against VC/RMS debates rather tiresome and fruitless, except for
83.
by foobarbazqux 13y ago
I think what you're missing is that, for whatever reason, we are genetically programmed to seek balance. Whatever is missing in your childhood environment, you will search for as an adult. The metaphor that comes to mind is this: imag
84.
by foobarbazqux 13y ago
> Not "works" in the sense of keeping bad people out, but "works" in the sense that when I use it my phone unlocks. I think that's the key distinction here. In any given authentication scheme it's important
85.
by foobarbazqux 13y ago
A single counterexample is enough to refute a universal claim.
86.
by foobarbazqux 13y ago
If you steal a quarter from Bob, and Bob steals a marble from you, are you saying it isn't theft (morally) for me to come along and take your quarter and Bob's marble and all your other toys while I'm at it? Is it stealing to
87.
by foobarbazqux 13y ago
It's a good point; the British government was the root source of the thievery. Perhaps we started as a nation of mercenaries.
88.
by foobarbazqux 13y ago
> What have we become? A nation of thieves. Actually, seems we started that way.
89.
by foobarbazqux 13y ago
For what it's worth, I'd like to read a story about a redhead, a juggler, a spy, and a florist. It sounds like something interesting would happen.
90.
by foobarbazqux 13y ago
Regardless of what you believe about JustFab, it has to mean something to you that just about everyone commenting about this on Hacker News disagrees with you.

More ›