totemizer

4 ms·

1.
by totemizer 7y ago
In fact the actual point should be that those production houses will never buy this stand because they already have their stands. (this is what MKBHD said anyway). And to be honest, if I had the money I would buy that stand, I always loved
2.
by totemizer 8y ago
suddenly the anti china and anti us propaganda went from one article every two weeks, to three articles every day. i wonder how many of us really wants to live the rest of our lives in nuclear winter? if we are "lucky".
3.
by totemizer 8y ago
And you do the first thing this author describes: http://www.smashcompany.com/technology/object-oriented-progr...
4.
by totemizer 8y ago
maybe this will then? http://www.smashcompany.com/technology/object-oriented-progr...
5.
by totemizer 8y ago
Wha? I was never into paleo, I think it's stupid, every damn vegetable and animal has changed since, and it's not like we are sure people actually were so much better of back then...
6.
by totemizer 8y ago
Thanks for noting, I missed this crucial detail completely. :(
7.
by totemizer 8y ago
No, it means that the people who were compelled to follow a low carbohydrate diet for one reason on another lived shorter. It doesn't tell you anything unless you know why they followed the diet they followed.
8.
by totemizer 8y ago
I really wish to know why those people were on low carbohydrate diet though. It seems to me that most people don't do that without a good reason.
9.
by totemizer 8y ago
I still think he should've mentioned the peter principle and hierarchiology
10.
by totemizer 8y ago
1. in reality, nothing ever is continuous, and those small errors are black swans. 2. PN!=P not because we can't solve it, but because it is impossible to solve, because there are more possible solutions than space we can use to model
11.
Not even wrong(medium.com)
1 points by totemizer 9y ago|2 comments
12.
by totemizer 9y ago
"open isn't a magic bullet" yeah, but closed is a harmful pattern. Open isn't about everything magically getting better, but when you do close development of something that potentially influences billions of people, it&#
13.
by totemizer 9y ago
That is not what I said. What I said is that math ultimately doesn't need to and doesn't want to deal with reality. The "proofs" they create do not even have to be consistent with each other, you can pick whatever you ne
14.
by totemizer 9y ago
math resides in the land of abtractions(fantasy land) and actual code has to run on actual physical machines in the real world. In the real world you can't just state an axiom and fix bugs as math people have solved all their problems
15.
by totemizer 9y ago
*with free support in russian :)
16.
by totemizer 9y ago
I am ok with people questioning anything, the only situation when this is not ok when there is an emergency, and for those situation we should be prepared ahead, so there is no question what we have to do. I see that you agree that the diff
17.
by totemizer 9y ago
as i wrote it elsewhere already regarding the original "manifesto": i am curious, if this person is ok with questioning their belief in "traits" that are defined on the level of sex. after all they are the one who says t
18.
by totemizer 10y ago
https://clojuredocs.org is not clojure docs? What it is then? Rust docs? Clojure templates? C++ docs? Clojurescript framework? Should be moved to howtofuckwithpeople.org
19.
by totemizer 10y ago
I could also just make my own hardware and write my own software from scratch. Even better, I could invent new math, new formalism, theoretically I could do all those things. But you know, I think it's a fucking stupid idea to ask noob
20.
Reading clojure docs is a PITA(medium.com)
1 points by totemizer 10y ago|11 comments
21.
by totemizer 10y ago
Probably not preferable. Async await works on top of promises...
22.
The worth of a brand(rafhatim.tumblr.com)
1 points by totemizer 10y ago|0 comments
23.
by totemizer 11y ago
I just leave this here: http://www.smashcompany.com/technology/object-oriented-progr...
24.
by totemizer 11y ago
I am actually suggesting that we end all economic inequality. The only reason I don't argue for "end all inequality" is that it's physically impossible as much as we know it. Economy should be about what is good for ever
25.
by totemizer 11y ago
All websites should look the same, but they don't. Sadly. It's all just information in some kind of format. A video as an mp4 or some text as... well text in whatever way your machine stores it, but mixed with a bunch of irrelevan
26.
by totemizer 11y ago
Let me FTFY: The web sucks.
27.
by totemizer 11y ago
Generally speaking I agree with you. However when you get to the "someone like the US steps in", I would like to make a few notes. 1. there is no other nation "like the US" but USA. Not even China or Russia have the kind
28.
by totemizer 11y ago
I am sure in the history there were some slaves which were inefficient, and I wouldn't say that it was their fault. I think a lot of decisions are made without asking the developers. Those decisions then impose situations when plannin
29.
by totemizer 11y ago
Oh yeah, that's the spirit. Who cares about more than half a million people?! I mean, Wyoming has less than that, just ignore them too! There are like three dozen of cities with population larger than that, so anyone who has less, shou
30.
by totemizer 12y ago
I agree with you completely. However when they argue why AI are a threat, they do come with arguments which basically boil down to anthropomorphizing them. I am convinced, that intelligence, as life is a gradient. I do not think that an AI

More ›