https://github.com/donaq/topovica <-- Code is ugly, there's no consistent style and there are no tests. Some bugs also exist, but I was just trying to get from zero to "meh, good enough for me" as fast as I could. Feel free to use it however you see fit.
HQ in Paris killed the Singapore branch because the company was not making money. I was given 1.5 months of notice, which seemed like plenty of time. There wasn't much drama to it that was intrinsic to the situation. I would have really liked a remote job at the time, so I tried a couple of the ones listed on HN's "Who's Hiring" thread, but didn't get any offers. With a week left before I was officially unemployed, I then interviewed with a startup and PayPal. The startup was ready to move forward, so I asked if PayPal was going to give me an offer as well. They said yes, so I rejected the startup's offer because I wanted to work somewhere where there was scale. Unfortunately, PayPal then experienced a management change, followed by a hiring freeze, after which the guys who assured me an offer was forthcoming, to their credit, continued to try to get me that offer. I waited because I trusted them but they were ultimately unsuccessful, which resulted in me being unemployed for about 2 months. I eventually got a job with another startup. I guess the moral of my story is that an offer is not an offer until you get your first paycheck?
Isn't it possible that a significant fraction of mature humpback whales have had bad encounters with killer whales when they were younger and just always mess with them when they can?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but chaotic systems are unpredictable because they are complex and infinitesimally small variations in starting conditions result in hugely different outcomes. They are not, however, non-deterministic. If the universe is merely chaotic and not actually stochastic, then the existence of you and your children are not only not unlikely, it was inevitable.
Exactly right. Unless you believe quantum mechanics throws a monkey wrench into determinism. Which it certainly does in the realm of the very small.
Chaos theory and QM are completely orthogonal (by which I mean they say different things about the universe, not that they are in conflict with one another). And they both screw up the idea of a predictable universe.
Quantum mechanics demonstrating non-determinism in the realm of the very small necessarily means that the macroscopic realm is also non-deterministic. A non-zero percentage of events occur in which that one particle appearing in one place rather than an is just enough to cause the macroscopic object to take a materially different path. In fact a simple thought experiment shows that a system could be engineered to demonstrate this. Add a sensor that reads which way a particle goes in a double slit experiment and based on the direction, flip a switch that makes a train go east or west based on the sensor read out.
Not sure what you mean. Quantum effects don't "disappear". They are physical laws. Which slit the particle enters after the wave decoheres is precisely a non-deterministic element of quantum mechanics.
It doesn't alter the outcome. It causes it to decohere into a particular outcome. There is no way to force a particular outcome, hence it being non-deterministic.
How do we know that what we perceive as randomness in quantum mechanics is "true" randomness, and not just something we say is "random" because we fail to model it?
(disclaimer: not a physicist, never looked into the maths, but I'm intrigued by QF)
There are deterministic interpretations that are very much on the table.
The Everett's Many Worlds[1] is fully deterministic (and depending on your view, the simplest one too): the universe is a quantum wave function evolving according to the Shrödinger's equation. That's it.
A lot (if not all) of the hidden variables theories are also deterministic. The apparent non-determinism stems from the aforementioned variables that we don't/can't see.
I keep hearing more and more about the Pilot wave theory[2] recently. And that's a hidden-variables deterministic interpretation.
"Young women don't magically become technologists at 22. Neither do young men. Hackers are born in childhood..."
Nitpick: I actually only started learning to program in university as an undergraduate (I was ~21). I have a female friend who had a similar start, so you don't necessarily have to start as a child. It's not gymnastics. The thrill of solving puzzles can be experienced at any time in your life, I think.
I don't like solving puzzles. Something that was put together by somebody else, for the sole purpose of you trying to figure out what it was. How stupid. It's for people who believe in god.
Assuming this is not vapourware, it's awesome! It carries 250 pounds, which is ~113Kg. So I'm like 80Kg or so. That leaves about 30kg, which is almost enough for a month's supply of food. If we can build a system of balloons to periodically float up supplies, we can seriously just live in the sky and have wild adventures!
You are super awesome. I have been programming for years and I still don't know how to do some of the stuff you've done for your websites. I'm sure I could easily learn how to, but then it's easy for me because I have the advantage of years of experience. To be able to get to where you are within 3 months is astounding to me and that tells me something about the validity of your approach, so I'm gonna shamelessly rip you off the next time I need to learn a new skill.
This. Even though I am Singaporean, I do not consider myself pro-Singapore. In fact, I would like to leave at some point. However, I occasionally find myself... not defending Singapore, but opposing its detractors because the criticisms leveled are either inaccurate or unfair. For example, saying that littering in Singapore will get you caned is grossly inaccurate, and comparing it to regimes like North Korea is grossly unfair, kind of like forum moderators accused of being Nazis is unfair.
Regarding the issue in the OP, I would not even attempt to defend it. It sucks and is typical of the sort of stuff the government pulls that makes me want to leave.
I completely agree with you. I live in SG too and I love the government for all their efficiency, clean corruption-free, intellectual approach to managing the country, but hate it when they still have draconian measures like this to control the criticism. I find them stupid in this case, because most Singaporeans are happy with PAP and they will elect them anyway even if criticism is allowed.
I have lived in Singapore and still have many friends there. That's one of the main reasons for me to submit this article.
I really liked the place, but for the complete control on media by the government and for this kind of measures to both stop criticism and "assure a peaceful society".
I'm really not sure if PAP would have the support it does if people could freely criticize it.
Another interesting related effect has also to do with how Singaporeans see themselves in relation to creativity and spontaneity due to the way things are structured there.
> I'm really not sure if PAP would have the support it does if people could freely criticize it.
From another perspective, I think it is a harmful anti-democratic cycle that the PAP has enough voting power in Parliament to effectively amend the Singapore constitution without debate [1], and to implement regulations such as this without opening it up to prior public debate.
Other forms of democracy have their shortfalls as well. First-past-the-post, at least in my opinion, needs to be replaced.
I'm really not sure if PAP would have the support it does if people could freely criticize it.
Hence the new law.
Another interesting related effect has also to do with how Singaporeans see themselves in relation to creativity and spontaneity due to the way things are structured there.
Possible sample bias here, but a lot of the creative types I know plan to leave.
