Keith Baar's videos on YT have helped me a lot; both for treating my knee pain and for increasing overall muscle strength. The videos tell you how to heal or strengthen your tendons, ligaments, and muscles.
I found that second link interesting although it raised the question of why gelatin versus amino acids in general.
However neither link seems to have anything to do with UC Davis or biochemical mechanisms related to collagen supplementation. I realize that it probably wasn't your intent but the mismatch leaves me feeling vaguely as though you tried to deceive me there.
I don't remember the exact link for the biochem stuff. Something about collagen being glycine limited and vitamin C being a catalyst for synthesis for tendon tissue regrowth.
A new visualisation tool for large networks. I've actually been working on this for a while and had planned to show a prototype tomorrow, just a bit late for this "Ask HN". Will update this thread with a link, hoping to get some advices and ideas if some people are still reading this by then.
IMHO the downsides of tagged unions (e.g. what Rust confusingly calls "enums") are big enough that they should only be used rarely if at all in a systems programming language since they're shoehoerning a dynamic type system concept back into an otherwise statically typed language.
A tagged union always needs at least as much memory as the biggest type, but even worse, they nudge the programmer towards 'any-types', which basically moves the type checking from compile-time to run-time, but then why use a statically typed language at all?
And even if they are useful in some rare situations, are the advantages big enough to justify wasting 'syntax surface' instead of rolling your own tagged unions when needed?
tagged unions (not enums, sorry) are not a dynamic type system concept. Actually, I would not be able to name a single dynamically typed language that has them.
As for the memory allocation, I can't see why any object should have the size of the largest alternative. When I do the manual equivalent of a tagged union in C (ie. a struct with a tag followed by a union) I malloc only the required size, and a function receiving a pointer to this object has better not assume any size before looking at the tag. Oh you mean when the object is automatically allocated on the stack, or stored in an array? Yes then, sure. But that's going to be small change if it's on the stack and for the array, well there is no way around it ; if it does not suit your design then have only the tags on the array?
Tagged unions are a thing, whether the language helps or not. When I program in a language that has them then it's probably a sizeable fraction of all the types I define. I believe they are fundamental to programming, and I'd prefer the language to help with syntax and some basic sanity checks; Like, with a dynamical sizeof that to reads the tag so it's easier to malloc the right amount, or a syntax that makes it impossible to access the wrong field (ie. any lightweight pattern matching will do).
In other words, I couldn't really figure out the downside you had in mind :)
> Actually, I would not be able to name a single dynamically typed language that has them.
That's because every type in a dynamically typed language is a tagged union ;) For instance in Javascript you need to inspect a variable with 'typeof' to find out if it is a string, a boolean, a number or something else.
In a dynamically typed language, the runtime system needs to carry information around what type an item actually is, and this is the same thing as the type-tag in a tagged union - and Rust's match is the same sort of runtime type inspection as the typeof in JS, just with slightly different syntax sugar.
> As for the memory allocation, I can't see why any object should have the size of the largest alternative.
...then every Bla object is always at least 16 bytes even when the active item is 'AByte' (assuming an empty String also fits into 16 bytes). Plain unions in C have the same problem of course, but those are rarely used (the one thing where unions are really useful in C (not C++!) is to have different views on the same memory).
> When I program in a language that has them then it's probably a sizeable fraction of all the types I define
...IMHO 'almost always sum types' is a serious design smell, it might be ok in 'everything is a reference' languages like Typescript, but that's because you pay for the runtime overhead anyway, no matter if sum types are used or not.
I don't think we speak the same language.
I was refering to the use case (in C) that's been described by sph.
Where you indeed malloc only the relevant size, and you have to manually and carefully check the tag before casting the payload into the proper type. This is what I am tired of doing over and over and over again, and would like a system programing language to help with.
...what else is a select on a tagged union than 'runtime casting' though. You have a single 'sum type' which you don't know what concrete type it actually is at runtime until you look at the tag and 'cast' to the concrete type associated with the tag. The fact that some languages have syntax sugar for the selection doesn't make the runtime overhead magically disappear.
Not sure why you call it runtime overhead. That’s core logic, nothing fancy, to have a pointer to a number of possible types. That’s what `void *` is, and sometimes you want a little logic to restrict the space of possibilities to a few different choices.
Not having syntactic sugar for this ultra-common use case doesn’t make it disappear. It just makes it more tedious.
There are many implementations and names, and what I refer to runtime casting/any type, which is unnecessary for low-level programming, is the one that uses types and reflection at runtime to be 100% sure you are casting to the correct type. Like Go’s pattern (syntax might be a bit off):
var s *string
var unknown interface{}
// panics at runtime if unknown is not a string pointer
s = unknown.(*string)
This is overkill for low-level programming and has much higher overhead (i.e. having to store type info in the binary, fat pointers, etc.) than tagged unions, which are the bread and butter of computing.
What I find interresting and would like to see discussed more, is the psychology at play that makes us believe this is another "exception to the rule of international law". I wonder if one could generalize the terror management theory (TMT) to social obedience?
"Be the change yo want to see", I guess. So, my pet peeve theory is that "the rule of law" is not something the ruling class needs to cover their track; it's something the ruled class needs to cover their shame. Shame of being ruled, but also terror of being ultimately subjected to arbitrary power.
For instance, I believe that in the feodal past lay people used to genuinely believe that kings got their authority from God; not because kings were good observants of the precepts of religion (they were not), but because that protects the self-esteem and helps hide the facts that their life was dependant of the whimsical violence of the princes.
I find it surprisingly hard to try to convince myself that there is no such thing as "rule of law", that for instance the overthrown of a non-aligned regime could be just about the oil and competition with China, although I know that's how future historians will deal with that non-story; There is some surprising amount of resistance from within to this idea. It's interresting to do the experiment.
Part of Schachnovelle as I remember it is that Dr. B as Weltbürger is driven crazy by the dual facts that Czentovic is both a primitive brute and yet succeeds at chess via brute force, which perhaps is meant to be compared with his earlier imprisonment in 1938, by people who succeeded at politics not by subtlety but by brute force.
The idea that cosmopolitan, educated, and cultivated people could be left like deer in the headlights by brutes setting themselves through by force reminded me of your description of TMT, or at least the ego-protective "helps hide the facts that their life was dependant of the whimsical violence of the princes" part of your explanation.
Note also that Thucydides' Athenians say that if they were to speak to the many, they would not put the matter so baldly, but since they are speaking to the few, they feel they may be frank.
I'm sceptical of directly "transpiling" lessons from history-- & in general I find that Austrians are full of it* (sorry! It does feel like they are on the elitist end of the populist-elitist divide)
*Earnings
Ps:
>Be the change yo want to see
It's Gandhi's saying that needs (more) elab :) I'll be that hypocrite and leave you to it
This is wonderful! Not only does Gandhiji speak on multiple levels, but unlike many who attempt it he carries the conceit through to perfection, offering valid first-aid advice to complete the surface reading.
https://www.gandhiheritageportal.org/cwmg_volume_thumbview/M...
(if one were only to read the first and last few pages, one would miss completely the change of tone in the middle; did EAB pick up this habit from the subcontinent?)
Heh. I just noticed DJT literally used the words "extraordinary military operation" during his press conference; does VVP's «специальной» have vastly different connotations in ru from "extraordinary" in en?
Unlikely to be intentional plagiarism, maybe just parallel evolution?
History repeats
But then again, it has to
Nobody listens
Guess I'd been reflecting on how close CBO and EMO (if I'm doing justice to the ru meaning?) sound to me. But I was already complaining at the formation of the DHS that it sounded remarkably parallel to an infamous organisation:
Department Ministerium
of für
Homeland Staats-
Security sicherheit
so I'm probably just a whiner and malingerer.
There's always the general lesson; even if Hillel[0] didn't get nailed to a stick[1] for preaching it, he doesn't seem to have many followers in, say, Likud.
A more specific lesson for the Old Country would be The Frogs Who Desired a King?
I've lifted^Wliberated this from somewhere, but can't remember where atm: the trouble with revolutions is that when they succeed[2], you rapidly discover that you didn't need a better government, you needed better people.
One reason I haven't finished the Durants' The Story of Civilization yet is that if you binge it, you rapidly discover that despite the pleasant turns of phrase, it's largely 13'549 pages of people treating each other poorly.
Pedantry to (nothing but): ERII could at least take a Landy offroad[3], even if in practice, as a lady, she often left it up to her chauffeur.
[1] I do love the characterisation in Master & Margherita which makes it sound like Mr. INRI was maybe on the spectrum (come to think of it, M&M is another frame story, but with the fantastic and realistic elements reversed)
[2] as the US 1776'ers, the Girondins, and the Mensheviks (to take just 3) might know?
[3] making her more accomplished than the modal Chelsea Tractor driver?
[2] Algolia-fu on yourself ;) do the inner party of SV or Fed have better people? It's possible that each of our "three hegemons" lose sleep over that question
The law of large numbers suggests that all of the hegemons:
bellatores military ML
laboratores economic IEF
oratores political DI
should optimise their practices and procedures for the population mean[0]: although one of them will obviously have slightly better people at any given point, which one is subject to time and chance, and the odds that that advantage would be larger get exponentially smaller.
(then again, the boundaries are more porous[1] than in the feudal days; I know of at least two MGIMO alums moonlighting in the economic realm)
[0] we've already covered 孫中山's triad, right?
[1] or are they? I think a typical "retirement plan" for an aging but rich bellator was to endow[2] a monastery with a comfortable amount of land, and then take orders there, because who would bump off an orator[3]? In the modern world, I see RAK (https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/12/29/world/29FACEBOOK-...) has grown a long beard since I last saw him; is he in the process of transitioning from bellator to orator? Maybe not: he seems to be feeling acutely unwell.
[2] compare El Cid's provision for his wife and daughters; or even Goldmund's father "gifting" Blaze the pony
[3] compare "Hideyori's son, Kunimatsu (age 8) was captured and beheaded; his daughter Naahime (Princess Naa) (age 7) was sent to Tōkei-ji, a convent in Kamakura, where she later became the twentieth abbess Tenshūin (1608–1645)."
Ok, yes I think it helped me to understand what you had in mind.
I'm not interrested in the mind of violent sociopaths as much as I'm interrested in that of the decent people who have to accept to live under their rule, not only because of the numbers involved. Rulers might be a bit shy about their motives at times (although I can apreciate a candid one), but living under one's reign is one of our strongest taboo - thus my interest.
On the gripping hand, there might be the possibility of ignoring wanna-be authoritarian leaders but convincing people not to follow them, à la https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24786278
Maybe there are more possibilities of which I am unaware; of these three, I chose the first.
Both those who voted for Trump or abstained from Harris believed they were acting _against_ authoritarians.
(BB was kinda fiction-in-a-fiction and would have provided no clue either for Harris and against Trump-- and 1984 (/Schachnovelle) didn't give a clue on how you might recognise an inner party-goer if you ran into one? Maybe Animal Farm would be better?)
Maybe it looks to you as if those who voted for Trump believed they were acting _against_ authoritarians, but I've lived among them.
I was still living in their midst when they tarred and feathered the Dixie Chicks (as they were then) for having the audacity to say GWB's Iraq Adventure might not be the most wonderful thing since sliced mayonnaise. (could we say they "cancelled" the Chicks?)
But now they're cheering Operation Southern Spear as if it were a homecoming game, as they did for GHB's Iraq. My local paper even had https://x.com/KatieMiller/status/2007541679293944266 (sorry for the X link) in it this morning.
They may say they're voting on a mind-your-own-business-principle, but whenever you look at what they do, they've consistently been voting on a leader-principle.
</anger>
Q. How do you describe a principled authoritarian follower?
A. "The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind"
Inner Party Pigs
Outer Party Dogs
Proles the Equal animals
you are talking about the base that Trump knows he can always count on. they don't matter as much these days. (I completely forgot about them no airquotes) I'm not sure David Graeber ever publicly got angry at these guys, however*
Ask PH (or Algolia it) about who he is angry with on the left. Those who drove the Swing voters (the prole equivalent of interchangeables) over to the other side or got Biden to "abdicate" . Loosely reminds me of the turncoats at Sekigahara and Bosworth Field
(*The rival camps that the Trump "inner corporatists" take seriously are SV "inner-outer party" (Shu Han?) and WallStreet/Fed (Wu?). With their bands of incorrigible rationalists/technocrats.
Imho Trump _wants_ leftist intellectuals distracted from his true strategy, and this is why he's more careful with Mamdani-- enemy of my enemy yada yada)
One of the ways to learn a smattering of a language would be to look at YouTube comments; sentences of the form "in YYYY they still made real music" and "is anyone watching in YYYY?" seem to occur in every natural language.
(for Sekigahara I wonder if part of the issue was credibility: if Tokugawa promises so many koku, you can be pretty sure you're getting them [and in the event he even lasted into his 70s] but if Ishida promises you so many koku, well, a lot can happen in 7-8 years: what are the chances that young Toyotomi will honour Ishida's old deals?)
Edit: come to think of it, both Shu and Wu do spend many of their waking hours trying to figure out how to intermediate themselves into any possible otherwise-dyadic transaction... Wei supposedly does as well, but compared with Shu and Wu, at least here, Wei has a light touch.
True, but you were talking about voting Trump/Harris, which pretty much implies the wide electorate, no matter who the real selectorate may be.
(speaking of selection, I completely forgot to include the judiciary in previous models. Would the whole Civil Rights thing have even happened if it hadn't been for the Warren Court?)
[Not that Warren was an angel, but despite his bigotry in other ways —or maybe because of it?— he was able to win state office by just winning both party's primaries, which I hadn't even known was a thing]
There's a wonderful line in one of the Retief stories where The Corps Diplomatique Terrestrien attempts to introduce "one sentient one vote" on some planet out in the galactic boondocks, and the natives instantly grasp its corollary: one less sentient, one less vote...
I'd believe the low of SV to be such a force; the high appear to be heading for https://www.angryflower.com/348.html , and I've been away for over half a lifetime, so I don't know what the mid may be doing. Blowing in the wind, probably?
How you might recognise an inner party-goer? In the case of the US, I think long-tenured legislators were part of it during my tour, but in DJT's time I'd guess they, alongside silicon valley owners of various social graphs, are to be found among the interchangeables*.
Certainly casual Trump-watching is even less useful than the old days of Kremlin-watching; his inner circle changes so often (cue Bueno de Mesquita & Smith) that it's a good thing we have the web now — the airbrush artists probably would've organised and gone on strike if they'd had to keep up.
(I guess I should give DJT his due: I had thought the two party system was a structural problem, yet he's delivered an existence proof that it is indeed possible to do something about it)
* should someone send all 535 members of congress a copy of the snakebite article? It's not going to be me; that's their problem.
In principle, our diplomats have mentioned "respecting the prohibition on the use of force enshrined in international law and the territorial integrity of sovereign states"
(Alexander the Great, on his deathbed, was asked who would inherit his empire; whether because he was an early "realist" or because he was apathetic or simply narcissistic [or?], he replied: the strongest)
Sure enough, if you model life experience as a 2d plot, you are going to have to simplify things quite a bit. Yes, time "felt" longer for a child (especially when the child has to wait or wants something yet to come, less so when it's time spent on video games), and children are particularly impatient compared to adults.
But is that experiencing life, though? How many strong memories from that "logarithmic first half" of my life do I have? Actually very few compared to what came later, and they are not particularly compelling either.
My guess is that the author just hit mid-life crisis after having spent one or two decades in an office. Boring mindless job is what makes life experience to plateau, not adulthood. If I think of the most accomplished persons that I know, who've done many things with their life, I can't imagine them saying that their childhood was half of their life. They would probably laugh at the idea.
Or maybe he hasn't reached that crisis yet, since he finds solace in the idea that his child is doing the living for him. Wait until the kids leave home, for the log to turn into a exponential panic.
I think you nailed it. This person is not living, and may never live. When their birds fly the coop and, worse, when they themselves retire, they're in for a whole world of emptiness.
This is something more dangerous that people realize, especially those “working for retirement” - if you only live to work, and then retire, you may find you retire from living, too.
Seen it a few too many times. Live life today, people!
“ So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today’s trouble is enough for today.”
“ And don't worry 'bout tomorrow, hey
Sha-la-la-la-la-la, live for today”
I was absolutely not advocating for not having any thought for the future, nor for "living in the moment".
I was saying that you must do both - dont just slave away and expect that you'll live when you're retired (a lifestyle which makes it less likely that you would even live until retirement age, let alone be physically or even mentally capable of enjoying retirement).
Instead, live in a way such that there it is meaningful while you do it, and it also prepares you for the future. Again, this would also have the benefit of showing your kids and others how to do this themselves.
That’s fine, but the incongruence comes when one expects unlimited supply of healthcare and a cash payment for decades in old age. Especially if one didn’t raise enough productive kids to pay for it, so then the question becomes if you’re not planning for tomorrow, why are others who are planning for tomorrow paying for your tomorrow?
I did not espouse such views. There exist resource constraints in reality which contradict the attitude presented by the post I responded to, unless they were willing to forego those socialized benefits.
Ah! And don't get me started about how specific its energy source must be! Pure electricity, no less! Where a human brain comes attached with an engine that can power it for days on a mere ham sandwich!
Those users will either check the source code and compile it themself, with all the proper options to match their system; or rely on a software distribution to do it for them.
People who are complaining would prefer a world of isolated apps downloaded from signed stores, but Linux was born at an optimistic time when the goal was software that cooperate and form a system, and which distribution does not depend on a central trusted platform.
I do not believe that there is any real technical issue discussed here, just drastically different goals.
reply