Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | psacawa's commentslogin

A relevant bit of self-promotion maybe:

I created a small language server for systemd unit files which may help those having to integrate services with it.

https://github.com/psacawa/systemd-language-server


the service syntax is the least of your concerns.

the windows service manager like UI of systemctl exploratory mode is one thing to tackle.

the lack of visibility on dependencies that are not obviously direct. or even relevant (like ssh depending on key generation at first boot, which depends on time, which depends on time sync, which depends on network target... which causes ssh to not get started, without any logs, if you don't have network... despite it not being the first boot... :mindblown)

i won't bother with whole list because 1. there's no alternative 2. "I'm just another systemd denier" like i wouldn't have to be using it from early on to accumulate so much grievances


Why do you want ssh if you don't have network :)


in fact i noticed this bug when ssh doesn't come up on qemu vms start on a laptop without wifi connection.

hardly Far from a 99% use case.

loopback address space is not enough for the network target


have you seen systemd-analyze?


systemd-analyze dot is nice in theory. In practice the sheer amount of dependencies makes the results difficult to use or understand.

That it's a mixture of before and requires (probably also wants, don't rememeber) does not make it easier.

Edit: Newer version have options to separate ordering from requirements. I don't think that existed on the system where I last used it.


yes and it also fails to catch that. and when reported years ago it was dismissed as "debian is doing weird shit. nobody sane depends things like so"


Anyone who has had to sift through large BNFs such as [0, 1] to find that the syntax error was a syntactically significant "TO" knows that this is the case. Natural language has synonyms, computer languages really should avoid synonyms and also any spurious syntactic sugar.

[0] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/13/sql-altertable.html

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/13/sql-commands.html


Never was it more appropriate to say "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." By engaging in systemic historical revisionism, Google means to create a future where certain peoples don't exist.


> Major private media corporations in poland were already closely aligned with PiS [...]

This statement is an outright lie. For example, Gazeta Wyborcza, all of Agora Media, and TVN have always been anti-PiS.

>[...] and independent media was shut down.

Can you elaborate on this?

> As a result, for several years all media in poland was pro-government.

Completely untrue.


Technoparasitism. In my opinion, the very premise of AI girlfriends veers so far away from human flourishing that privacy concerns seem entirely secondary.


I don't understand the hand-wringing over it (excepting the exploiting lonely people and collecting massive amounts of highly sensitive data part which is obviously evil). Nobody is going to reject a human partner because they already have a cell phone app. For people who would otherwise never have a human partner why not let them have an app if it makes them happy?


> Nobody is going to reject a human partner because they already have a cell phone app.

I'm not so sure about that, actually. Most people won't, but there do exist people who don't do what's needed to have a human partner because they have porn instead. I don't see how an AI girlfriend would be any different.

> why not let them have an app if it makes them happy?

Who's talking about not letting them have the app? I find it incredibly sad, but it's not my life so not my business.


Treating it as "just having a cell phone app" is quite the trivialization of how much time and emotional investment could go into it. Sort of like calling someone who plays video games 10 hours a day "just on the computer like everyone else at work." There are obviously many people in the modern world that are so engrossed in screens like Youtube, Instagram, and video games, that it's coming at the expense of their in person interaction and relationships.

Personally, I agree with GP, that it's quite a terrible travesty that people are being sucked into being controlled by a machine and forgoing the eternal human condition of building a relationship with real human people in person like we always have.


> For people who would otherwise never have a human partner why not let them have an app if it makes them happy?

I want to agree with you but my optimism has rarely reconciled with history itself.

There's a fallacy here: why are we writing off an entire subset of the population as irredeemable? Ugly people find love. Even assholes find love. Weight is not an exception, nor disability.

This is like giving heroin to someone that's depressed. Sure it'll make them happy, but it won't end well.

For something that takes place behind closed doors there's no oversight either, which is a problem enough with rogue therapists (see the Ramona False Memory case). This undermines social cohesion and makes radicalization trivial-- nobody would see it coming at all enough to intervene.

We're talking private reinforcement of ideas like kill-your-parents-and-yourself, or commit-treason-and-sabotage type of suggestions. Nobody knows little Jimmy is jerking it to Israeli propaganda.

https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/pornography-transgende...

I've asked before why there is no hypnosis porn to make people fetishize anything other than feminizing men. There's no "you like natural beauty" hypno, or "you're fine just the way you are" hypno. It's all an ad campaign to specifically drive sales of therapy and hormones. One nation produces 90% of the world's supply; guess who.

All of this to support a commercial endeavor. God help us when this sort of personalized influence is weaponized for military use.


Right now isn't the entirety of AI - that scours the internet for other people's content for training - parasitical upon humanity?


This is a remarkable inversion. The primary reason people forego children in the west is because it throws a wrench in their comfortable lifestyle. They prefer to live unto themselves, instead of unto children, i.e. selfishly.

I believe the environmental/climactic concerns raised by antinatalists are just a feeble deflection. They are primarily interested in personal comfort.


This may be true in many cases, but I know quite a few people that chose not to have kids for other reasons.

For some, these are possible medical complications, e.g. history of heart defects, high risk of childbirth fatality.

For others, its that they had abusive or traumatic childhoods, and either don't feel they'd be up to the task of parenthood, or associate childhood with something so unpleasant that they wouldn't want to inflict it on others.


You could have asked my why I think it is selfish.

I believe creating new life is playing 'god'.

It's easier to never exist than life life.

This has nothing to do what you thought


> I believe creating new life is playing 'god'.

That's an unusual definition of "playing god", since it includes something that pretty much every life form back to the earliest single-cellular bacteria does.


Those are not self aware and can't think about the implications


> Those are not self aware

I'm not sure I do this most of the time.

> can't think about the implications

I definitely don't do this bit.


As a childless person I agree entirely. I fully acknowledge and embrace that I don't have kids because I'd rather not deal with the hassle of it.

Although I've not fully understood what makes that decision "selfish" in the sense that I'm not acting in a way that is a detriment to others.


I think I never wanted children because I realized quite young that there’s no god and when I died I would be done and gone and nothing I had done would ever have mattered. It did not make for a happy childhood and is not something I’d wish upon a child. And I don’t even have any happy stories about religion to pass onto a child like my parents tried to impart on me.

If I were to create people in order to try and find some meaning but leaving them as adrift in this meaninglessness as I, would that really be a selfless act? It seems quite the opposite to me.

Perhaps this is indeed “cope” in one way or another, but it’s what I’ve felt from a very young age, though I think it took me a lot of reflection to realize it and be able to put it into words.


I don't really want to have kids.

I am not an "antinatalist" because of this.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with comfort (or the environment or climate).

I note that the "unto" here is a very interesting word choice that hints at an underlying belief structure that drives your opinion.


If you are asking for examples of brutal acts performed or ordered by Muhammed, here is a long list [0]. Most notable to me is the murder of 600-900 captive non-combatants. This is referred to as the massacre of the Banu Qurayza (woman and children then made slaves).

I suppose you brought up Muhammed on the basis that his venerated status in Islam enables us to significantly extrapolate Muslim culture from his own personal culture. I will therefore state that the evidence of Quran/Hadiths yield evidence of great brutality in the person of Muhammed, which therefore may inspire brutality and violence in any devout followers of his, or in the broader Islamic culture. This is certainly conducive "creating criminal gangs".

[0] https://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Suppo...


The accounts in primitve terms obscure it's true meaning.

It's just a analytic function on the moduli space of elliptic curves.

The collection of equivalence classes of elliptic curve (torii of the form C/lattice) has the structure of a complex space (it's not a complex manifold, but rather a complex moduli stack). Modular forms are just analytic functions on it. That's all.

This dumb article doesn't help matter by presenting a brazen lie in the headline. Fifth fundamental operation, my butthurt ass.


The title paraphrases a pithy quote of Martin Eichler (I believe), an influential modular forms researcher. It’s not just some pretentious editor trying to be clever.


Sounds like it's a pretentious researcher trying to be clever.


Well, they're not _just_ that, right?

First, they can be differential forms, not only functions. Second, there's an important note that we don't look only at things over C. For example, specifically in the context of Fermat's Last Theorem, we need Hida's theory of p-adic families of modular forms. Much of the arithmetic of modular forms comes from the modular curves being algebraic and (almost) defined over the integers.


The above definition (analytic function on a moduli space of elliptic curve) actually extends in a natural way. I haven’t known what modular forms were before the parent comment, but I know algebraic geometry, and so it is natural for me to extend above definition for cases you mention.

If modular forms are (global?) sections of the structural sheaf of the moduli space of elliptic curves, the differential forms view will just be the standard construction of sheaf of 1-differentials. Similarly, since elliptic curves are easily defined over arithmetic fields, arithmetic modular forms will just be same thing, but over C_p or something like that.

I actually might be totally off in the above, but I doubt I am: that’s the power of Grothendieck approach, where everything just falls into its natural place in the framework.


This definitely fits with Grothendieck's philosophy: he basically ignored all work in this area, implicitly claiming it was trivial, while some of his closest friends and most famous student made huge strides with actual hard work - not quite things falling into place. In fact, the paper most famously proving the Weil conjectures has as an explicit target the coefficients of a modular form, uses an inspiration from automorphic forms theory, and is infamously Grothendieck's greatest disappointment.

There is rich structure in this area of maths that goes well beyond just sections of some sheaf, or at least this is what Serre, Deligne, Langlands, Mazur, Katz, Hida, Taylor, Wiles and many others seem to think.


Oh, I did not meant to imply that the framework necessarily makes it so that the results open like a softened, rubbed nut, as Grothendieck said; I don't quite agree with that. For me, the benefit is rather in building a mental framework, which facilitates understanding, and putting seemingly disparate things into one coherent whole. The actual hard thinking and insights are still necessary, it ain't no royal road.


Is there any intention of eventually supporting DML or DDL statements? That's when the COBOL-like nature of SQL syntax is most frustrating. For example, in order to run "ALTER COLUMN ..." I have to parse a ridiculous BNF like this[0] almost every time. I'll never remember it.

Usually, the error is a gotcha built into the language syntax (e.g. forgot the keyword "TO").

[0] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/13/sql-altertable.html


Idiotic clickbait headline seeks to insinuate that there was something dishonest about her racing, when in reality her participation broke a false belief (a "lie") that women were physically unable to complete marathons.


I think they meant raced against a lie, but they left out so many words it's ambiguous now.


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

Search: