Bonus points if it touches on the speed of light/causality or interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31291784

Points: 6

# Comments: 5

> We all move through time at one second per second, don’t we?

You need to define “move through time”. The only way to measure time is with a clock, and the clock’s motion relative to you affects the measurement.

If you let everyone define “time” as the thing measured by the watch on their wrist, then everyone moves through time at one second per second, but since people are in motion relative to each other and therefore have different frames of reference, their clocks will measure different times.

Since no frame of reference is privileged, there is no “absolute time”. Of course you could pick one and measure every event against that one, but that would be an arbitrary choice.

This is my understanding. If I’m wrong, I’d be happy to be corrected.

That's not what I meant though. I meant that words are like signs; they point at the real thing. We must be careful not to confuse the sign for the thing itself. We can't simply rearrange words and assume that what this new sign, this new combination of words points to, is "real". Not all words or sentences point to anything, or anything meaningful. And the trap we sometimes fall into (as philosophers especially?) is assuming that they always mean something.

Edit: First the thing exists, then we use a word to refer to it. The mistake is reversing that, by thinking that by creating new words or combinations of words, we can bring something into existence.

Language is far more important in philosophy and life than we think. The biggest takeaway I got from the part of this book I read is a way of looking at problems with the limitations of language in mind. Ask yourself: to what extent is thinking speaking? What is thinking without language? Is it even possible, or is that something else?

There's this interesting idea that has stuck with me, which is that when we say words, "pictures" are "brought before" our mind. Is language (speaking, reading/writing) simply a way for us to conjure up these mental images in other people's minds? If so, how can we be sure that what they see is what we intended for them to see? I think it's clear from experience that the images are mostly right, most of the time. But when they're not, we have misunderstandings. Another interesting statement made in the book (iirc) is that we only need more language when we feel there is a misunderstanding. The word "more" is important in the previous sentence. The idea here is that when we speak, we have some desired outcome from the outset. Once we feel that our speaking has led to the outcome we wanted, we are satisfied to stop speaking. It is only when the person we're speaking to isn't doing what we want, or seems to be getting the wrong mental picture that we need to continue speaking (this is what I meant by "more language": to continue speaking).

There's another interesting area Wittgenstein explores (which I can't admit to following very well), but I'll try to conjure a mental image in your head of it ;). Basically, so far his argument (if I understood correctly) is that "the truth" is the mental images we see and the actions we take, and language is just a means to those ends. He then argues (again, if I understood him correctly) that we usually run into trouble when we take language as the starting point of knowledge. That's not very clear, so what do I mean by that? It's sort of like, words work well when we're using them to achieve some outcome. But they start to confuse us when we use them without a desired outcome from the outset: when we use them to gain knowledge. Words are not facts that we can logically make deductions from to discover new knowledge.

1. The labourers finish the work in less time and get more leisure time (production and labourers stay constant, time spent decreases)

2. Some of the labourers are fired since fewer are needed to perform the same work in the same amount of time now (time and production stay constant, labourers decrease)

3. The same amount of labourers work the same amount of time, but produce more due to the increased efficiency. (time and labourers stay constant, production increases)

In my experience, unless you work for yourself, outcome 1 will never happen. Outcome 3 is desirable from a broader perspective because that extra production must be benefitting someone. But I don’t see any upside to option 2. Some people lose their jobs and there’s no extra production. I guess you could argue it would have been a waste for them to continue working on something that could be done more efficiently without them, so in the long term it works out, but in the short term they lose.

I think a key takeaway is that less is more. People don’t have time to read long cover letters and resumes. Keep it as short as possible but no shorter. Cut out everything that’s not your best selling points.

It’s very basic, missing a lot of features, and likely buggy, but I’ve had fun making it and using it.

It saves to and loads from localStorage, so you can use it without an account and save and load graphs on the same machine.

* the author chooses not to use the terms lower, middle, and upper class because doing so just leads to arguments about where to draw the lines. Interesting that so many comments on this thread are just people arguing about what "upper class" means because it's a personal term. He instead splits the distributions of income into three parts, the bottom 50%, the 40% above that, and the top 10% and simply refers to them by centile and decile. The "top decile" has an unambiguous meaning, whereas "upper class" could mean anything. * there are three distributions: income from labour, income from capital, and combined total income. The people at the top of one distribution aren't necessarily the ones at the top of the other. The book analyzes inequality across different countries across the past two hundred years or so, super interesting stuff * only when you get into the top 0.1% are you earning more income from capital than income from labour * inequality of income from labour is far lower than inequality of income from capital and always has been in every society in every period * inequality from income from labour is _easier_ to morally justify than inequality from capital, but still not necessarily just in any absolute sense * the bottom 50% owns only about 5% of the total capital

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20601883

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15934762

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15900860

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

With that in mind, where does this chip fit into the current space? Is it meant to replace both? It contains their two different kinds of cores, which I'm assuming are similar to the complex cores we have in CPU's and the simple cores we have in GPU's. Does this mean that if chips like this are used in the future, we wouldn't have separate processing units?

Also, how does one use an SoC like this? What are its inputs and outputs? How do I access those? Do I need specialized hardware? Can I plug it into my existing desktop? Do they expect a new system to be built around this, or is it a drop in replacement for a part in an existing system?