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 these move-around-stay-in-place gadgets.

Oh they will for a client den, to show they can. For actual workstations around the offices - no, but also not that monitor.

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".

It just balances out the last ten years of pro Chinese propaganda.

And you do the first thing this author describes: http://www.smashcompany.com/technology/object-oriented-progr...

Not really. Almost no one would call erlang or elixir an Oop language, but one basically does everything using Kay's style.

No true Scotsman doesn't apply when the original definition legitimately shifts

maybe this will then? http://www.smashcompany.com/technology/object-oriented-progr...

Unfortunately, no. While he hasa lot of good arguments, they're drowned out by his repeated use of logical fallacies to push his point across. This long, rambling piece simply comes off as him bullying the reader into agreeing with him.

Note that I'm not saying he doesn't have valid points hidden in that wall of text, but he's certainly lacking the social skills and reader empathy to land a good argument, and as a result its too exhausting to take him seriously.

> Complains about logical fallacies

> Immediately comments with logical fallacy.

While this is obviously wrong, it does serve to illustratea point: when dealing with controversial subjects, there is a tendency towards tribalism. When you're for one "side", the other side is by definition wrong, and you must defend your "side" at all costs. Any criticism of any aspect of your side is an attack against the tribe and by extension, you. An attack requires a counterattack, and since at this point the person is engaging their amygdala, even their most incorrect statements seem completely factual and rational to them.

It makes things like editors, languages, syntactic style, and development paradigms impossible to discuss rationally and reasonably.

Did you mean to reply to me with this comment? It has nothing to do with what I said.

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.

Hi ho, greetings to the rabid HN paleo crew, how you doing?

You're all over this thread like a bad rash.

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...

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.

Well, anecdotally for me it is just because of how I feel on such a diet. It takes a while for the body to adjust, but once it does I feel like I am on a high that never ends. No ups & downs, just pure focus and energy. Would it be like that for everyone? Who knows. But I have never felt this before on any other diet. That's why I stick with it. (Note I do about 5% carbs, 80% fat, 15% protein)

Even if this ends up with higher mortality (which I highly doubt this claim, there is a lot of research and results it is in conflict with) - I'd rather live feeling like this than the alternative.

I also question the meat claims because there is also a lot of evidence to the contrary. It seems like there may be a confounding variable in there that is skewing the results.

>"I really wish to know why those people were on low carbohydrate diet though."

They weren't. It looks like the lowest in the study was ~20%, which is about the upper bound on what could be considered "low carb".

Thanks for noting, I missed this crucial detail completely. :(

I still think he should've mentioned the peter principle and hierarchiology

Hierarchiology?

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 them. (oversimplified, i know) 3. que?

"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's an invitation for disaster. We do not want open because we like open, we want open because we are afraid of closed.

and just to be clear, the least whatever you are doing in a closed format affects people the least i want it to be open.

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 in the past 150 years.

What? If this is true then there are a whole lot of misguided mathematicians out there working on "solved" problems. If they could just add whatever axiom seemed useful math research would be meaningless.

If you're saying that math/theoretical computer science makes unrealistic assumptions, that's a different (and more reasonable) claim.

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 need...