mtdewcmu

8 ms·

31.
by mtdewcmu 5y ago
The pilots aren't inventing anything on each flight. If they fly the airplane exactly the same way every time, that's a good thing. Writing new programs is not like that.
32.
by mtdewcmu 5y ago
Unlike the F-35, I think the taxpayers are getting their money's worth.
33.
by mtdewcmu 5y ago
Thanks for your reply. I thought there was a point being made about education at a more meta level, since the piece was very old and it begs the question of why a really old essay is on hackernews.
34.
by mtdewcmu 5y ago
What's the TL;DR of this? I finished part 1 and and I lost faith that this was heading toward any conclusion.
35.
by mtdewcmu 9y ago
echo "Hello world!" > hello.php php hello.php
36.
by mtdewcmu 9y ago
O&G technology is pretty amazing. I guess you can develop some pretty amazing technology when you can invest many billions of dollars over many decades, because the payoff is huge. Makes you wonder where other technologies would be with
37.
by mtdewcmu 9y ago
Ask the person to implement "Hello world" and then count the lines of code, number of classes, inheritance depth, number of external dependencies, etc.
38.
by mtdewcmu 9y ago
Yes, the man page is very good. The online gnu documentation is good, too. Some of the information will not be categorized as bash.[1] Also check out sed and awk. [1] http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual&#x
39.
by mtdewcmu 9y ago
It's interesting to speculate on how it could be done. Maybe it could be soft, like a fire hose, and kept open by internal pressure. That way it could be unfurled from a ship. Rigid pipe seems pretty difficult.
40.
by mtdewcmu 9y ago
I wonder if it's feasible to put a pipeline under the ocean between North America and Europe. It seems crazy, but a lot of crazy stuff has happened.
41.
by mtdewcmu 9y ago
Agree. I think of group (1) as the "accidentally homeless." Group (2) is homeless secondary to some other insidious problem and they will remain homeless unless the primary problem is dealt with. Group (1) are a source of feel-goo
42.
by mtdewcmu 9y ago
>>But I disagree that beat 1 is always the cause I agree that that's a weak part of the theory and it could use more thought. >>The pattern of dah-DUM is pretty common, and the dah would typically be a quarter or eight note
43.
by mtdewcmu 9y ago
Sorry to imply that you don't know music. When someone just says "i don't understand that" it's impossible to know what's preventing them from understanding.
44.
by mtdewcmu 9y ago
I had another brainstorm. With respect to rhythms where #3 is relatively loud, which describes most rock: I think it's actually a bit of a trick. It causes the song to sound faster. The reason is because the snare or whatever on #3 is
45.
by mtdewcmu 9y ago
I wrote the comment with the expectation that the reader would have enough musical background to understand it. I can easily picture a rhythm as it would appear in sheet music (well, maybe not easily), because I used to play drums and I had
46.
by mtdewcmu 9y ago
Oh! Gotcha. Thanks for the vote of confidence.
47.
by mtdewcmu 9y ago
There's so much in your comment that I could respond to. I probably won't get to everything. But here is a "proof" that beats are perceived as if they were echos, using a rock beat. A (natural) echo is softer than the or
48.
by mtdewcmu 9y ago
It's not really a Markov chain, because Markov chains are random. It could be a degenerate Markov chain where probabilities are either 1 or 0, so that the same pattern repeats over and over. The pattern can change, say, every 4 bars. T
49.
by mtdewcmu 9y ago
>>One could make the argument that beat #3 is an echo of #1. But then beat #2 couldn't also be an echo of beat #1. That isn't true! Beat #1 can have an infinite number of echos. N.B.: When I was initially thinking about this
50.
by mtdewcmu 9y ago
I came up with something of a theory of rhythm. I don't know anything about music theory, so, for all I know, the theory is not new or a better theory already exists. But it's simple, so I'll share the main idea. I think that
51.
by mtdewcmu 9y ago
>>Given the difficulty of entering the mobile handset market, and the inertia of most players, I'm just not sure we would have broken out of the rut. I think we might agree on that? I guess my main thesis rests on the idea that a
52.
by mtdewcmu 9y ago
I think it's meant to apply to a single, atomic concept that the audience is suitably prepared to understand. It couldn't be something like "how to build a car starting from a lump of steel" -- that would not be a single
53.
by mtdewcmu 9y ago
None of that disagrees with my point, I don't think. >>I think most companies implementing one would have screwed it up (see: RIM). Little keyboards were a dead end (I think I remember reading contemporaneous articles noting the
54.
by mtdewcmu 9y ago
Apple did a great job engineering the iPhone. They really killed it, no doubt. That being said, I think that Apple was the only company that could have invented the iPhone in the mid-2000s, because of their high degree of vertical integrati
55.
by mtdewcmu 9y ago
It's ironic that the set of dangerous drugs coincides perfectly with the set of drugs that are banned under the Controlled Substances Act. The government gets to decide which drugs are illegal and therefore can only be abused, not used
56.
by mtdewcmu 9y ago
You'd think that you would learn more about playbooks from a sport that actually uses them, like football, right? How do you learn about playbooks from rock climbing?
57.
by mtdewcmu 9y ago
The canonical counterexample to "who needs progress?" is medicine. I wouldn't want to be limited to the medical care from 1999 if all else is equal. Who needs to live with hepatitis C now that there's a cure?
58.
by mtdewcmu 9y ago
At what point do you consider the bacterium dead? If it splits in two, you consider them both offspring and the parent is dead?
59.
by mtdewcmu 9y ago
It seems that one could argue that the first single-celled organism has never died. Single-celled organisms reproduce by dividing, and there's no distinction between parent and offspring, right? So if any offspring survives, then the o
60.
by mtdewcmu 9y ago
If the manufacturer claims that it works for 12 hours and it clearly doesn't, then then that's false marketing. The FDA could stop them from making that false claim without taking the product off the market.

More ›