Disclaimer: I am absolutely not a physicist, and so the following might be quite incorrect.

It seems that your interpretation of the rule is actually an assertion of the many world's interpretation of quantum mechanics. If you don't mention that caveat then you're actually asserting determinism in this particular universe.

No, GP means (in the second line) that because nature (and particle colliders) perform so many "experiments", even very rare outcomes will be spotted eventually.

It's a statistical statement about many particles (or field-values in a sufficiently large spacetime(-region)-filling set of quantum fields), not an interpretational statement about a single particle.

The key there is "at every interaction".

Consider lots and lots of interactions.

In what I was explaining, you have highly probable outcomes being observed a lot, and very low probability outcomes being observed rarely.

In what you are reading on wikipedia, you have at each and every one of those lots and lots of interactions a "splitting" into a different world per possible outcome. That's MWI's core content, and it seems to help some people develop intuitions about outcomes of experiments where small numbers of interactions (perhaps even just one, especially where it involves entanglement) determine much larger systems.

I assume you're referring to the gif of the German goal from the world cup. "Afraid" is a bit of a misinterpretation. When you're 5-10 feet from the other player and he's shooting on goal, especially if that other player is one of the best in the world, turning around is the only sane thing to do.

One of my maths professors was a humorous guy and in his lectures would, as an ongoing joke, only explicitly credit Heaviside and Hungarians.

Doing this really drove home how neurotic and generally distracted I had become. I'd do some reading at lunchtime and by bedtime couldn't recall much of it at all. I don't know for sure, but it really felt like my memory was being thrashed by the music, websites, podcast, etc that came between lunch and bedtime.

First I'd like to say that I think this particular critique, that of considering to what extent we ought to offload our skills into various technologies, is definitely worth engaging in. It seems to me that at some point certain new technologies might very well have negative marginal value.

That said, this is a perplexing comment. Surely shunning writing "as much as possible" would include shunning HN comments.

I'm pretty sure it's a quote from the co-founder, Wiktor. There's a picture of him with his name just below the quote.

Yeah, I get that; it’s just that testimonials are usually written by users of the software, right?

Yeah I agree it's a bit idiosyncratic.

This is technically true but in practice Docker for Mac hides this from you and does not require a prohibitive amount of memory. 99% of the developers at my company have 16gb MBPs and we all build multiple Docker containers daily.

Thanks. I didn’t know the visualization system changed. I will check this out again.

> Who would risk building their company on a stack that you lose the license for if you do too well?

You could frame this in a different way and come to a different conclusion. Instead of describing OSS as a "stack you lose the license for if you do too well" you could say "stack you don't have to pay for unless you're successful".

Which is still worse than "stack you don't have to pay for"

One might believe that OSS's raison d'etre is to increase equality in economic opportunity. If you see OSS dev that way and you see corporations like Google and Facebook as opponents of that cause, then if you agree with GP's statement on who the beneficiaries are, you might also agree with GP that there's a problem.

Chapter 6 is block ciphers, Chapter 7 is stream ciphers.

Also, the first lines in chapter 7: Let’s try to build a stream cipher using the tools we already have. Since we already have block ciphers, we could simply divide an incoming stream into different blocks, and encrypt each block...