Fira Code came in second, and that's fair, I've used it on occasion, I like it.

I feel like Chivo Mono[1] would make a decent programming font — if a programming version of it were to exist, anyway.

I also like Go Mono[2], and although they're rather different to what I usually go for, I can see the appeal of the M+ mono[3] fonts.

For those of a more whimsical inclination, Fantasque Sans Mono[4] seems like it might be cool for you.

[1]: https://fonts.google.com/specimen/Chivo+Mono

[2]: https://go.dev/blog/go-fonts

[3]: https://mplusfonts.github.io/

[4]: https://belluzj.github.io/projects/design/fantasquesansmono-...

Then the government's problem when the insurer melts down.

Because if we just accept that, what do we do then? We just sit and wait for some new astronomical observation to give us a clue? that could take forever, and we'd be banking that we have the tech to observe this magic hint.

Better to suppose that the theories we have comprise an accurate approximation or partial model of reality, and from there strive to find a better model.

The process of doing so will either refine/entrench our current model and our conviction, or it will result in actually finding a better model. Win-win, and all the while, we can still have our telescopes and detectors on for the magic hint we'd be sat waiting for anyway.

When things break down into singularities, it can be a pretty good indicator that we've got something wrong. Not necessarily, but in this case, I think we missed something.

I believe he actually said that all humour is passed on, i.e. that all the comic acts that have come along after Laurel and Hardy were in essence re-enacting scenes that they had performed, in another form, prior.

Of course, Laurel and Hardy were brilliant, but it would actually be naive to think that the chain began there. Performed comedy is as old as civilisation itself, and always fluctuates in sophistication/depth relative to the target audience.

Laurel and Hardy represent a talented comedic duo, heavy on physical humour (though not without wit) captured on film so that the physicality of their performance was not up for debate or a supposition, and was available to be absorbed and drawn upon by later comedic performers, and I think this physicality is why Adrian calls back to them. For him, they offer a textbook approach to a broad category of humour.

As for the finitude of humour, I think it would be rather more bizarre if the contrary was true and humour was infinite. Then everything could be funny. Maybe there are a lot of permutations for humour -- if you think about it, the audience (and by extension the time they live in) somewhat dictate what is and isn't funny, and there are considerations as well for cultural context (i.e. JP and CN are going to have a lot of material that will seem nonsensical to a Western audience and vice versa) some humour is obviously universal.

But even to include all topical, regional humour, the number of phrases and physical movements of bodies that can trigger genuine amusement is very likely to be a finite subset of the possible permutations, especially given that all permutations themselves will be finite in total number (there are not an infinite number of words or possible physical occurrences...)

Perhaps indeed there is even a small number of types of humour-incitement, of which all topical, regional jokes are simply manifestations. To group humour-incitement types in this way, Adrian's assertion seems even more acceptable.

He doesn't say Laurel and Hardy invented humour or anything that we could immediately refute. I think he considers their work to be the textbook. Everything you should see before coming up with your own material can be found in their catalogue.

Like all art, grasp the fundaments and figure out which rules you want to subvert to get your message across, for the sake of doing so rather than empty rebellion or feeding reviewers from a marketing perspective.

Sometimes there's no reason to break a rule, and sometimes there's every reason.

As for his fatigue, whether the man has had exposure to humour from other cultures is not clear, but certainly in the context of his own culture I would be inclined to agree. The vast majority of comedy in the West is very obviously recycled material with different packaging. That's not to say that sometimes the later recyclings aren't better than the "originals" —- a lot of it is in the delivery, and if you watch them all without bias (nostalgia) you can probably pick out some cases where a comedy from 2007 is funnier than something conceptually similar from 1987.

A lot of people grew up with comedy shows that were the best of their time and thus become the best for those people, and they watch stuff 20 years later after having rewatched their favourites a dozen times as well and it all seems less novel. Perhaps the same effect occurs for the performers as well as the audience.

Adrian also lost his partner in comedy, the infamous Rik Mayall, and this perhaps soured him on comedy without that second half to bounce off of. They used to tour live and they would often break character and break the fourth wall —- while their long collaboration and friendship would lend a good deal of weight to it, as well as topical spice depending on the region, I think they were keen to do it anyway to keep their material a little fresher and keep things interesting for themselves while doing it. Touring the same act up and down the country would surely be enough to convince anyone it's all been done before. Losing that certainly confines one's repertoire to only the rehearsed material.

I think he's married to Jennifer Saunders (of Absolutely Fabulous and French and Saunders fame) but I don't think they ever collaborated much.

Before: let's commission a designer to make a cool logo / let's make a cool logo.

Now: market research data indicates that 90% of sales went to people who used this font style in their logo so let's commission a designer to make us a logo that looks like everyone else's [1]

[1] with no consideration of the fact that 99% of sellers use that font type in their logo and 85% sales went to market leader who definitely used that font type in their logo, to say nothing of the fact that the logo probably didn't secure the conversion in any cases

I also must apologise for my use of the term "emergent property" regarding gravity — judging by your response, I seem to have alluded (unintentionally) to a whole other theory of gravity; I only wanted to say that gravity itself is the curvature of the geometry of spacetime rather than a force in the conventional way it is described.

Also, regarding alternatives still requiring dark matter, it is my understanding that MOND and its derivatives explain galaxy rotation curves but not other phenomena that dark matter is purported to resolve (galaxy cluster formation/structure, gravitational lensing, CMB). If I am wrong about this, I would welcome correction. On the other hand, if your comment simply meant that there are alternatives to DM and MOND that require no DM, fair enough, I should have been clearer and said that some of the foremost competitor theories still require DM.

But I stress again, I am not fighting DM's corner or saying that alternatives are wrong. My stance on it is irrelevant, and I have no more belief in it than any other explanation, belief is irrelevant and doesn't enter into the matter. I was just saying that I understand why a theory that inflates mass arbitrarily, and understandably ruffles some feathers as a result, is given any credence at all.

Personally, I understand your frustration with DM, it does not seem like very good science to let unexpected or inexplicable observations make us simply add parameters without making further predictions to test if that's the right thing to do. Does seem like we're manipulating facts to fit the theory where we should be altering the theory to fit the facts.

Since DM is a substance that, for all intents and purposes, defies detection by any means at our disposal, it makes no further predictions, it just lets us push the square block into the round hole — what we should be doing is finding the square hole.

I couldn't agree more. I don't think anyone should claim to be certain about any of our understanding of the universe. I just say that it isn't very useful to think that way, we make more progress if we have the courage to trust in a theory and dare to be proven wrong, than to go back to the drawing board when we get stuck.

I just said it makes more sense to give DM priority because what is the point of having a model if you don't start from it.

Also why are you being so hostile towards me exactly? I didn't express any love for dark matter or the standard model, and I am not a fan of perpetuating a status quo or any form of academic dogma.

All I said, quite unsuccessfully it would seem, is why people think its likely for dark matter to be there — because if you add in "invisible" mass with existing laws of physics, you get something that looks like what we see through our telescopes. I think many would prefer to suppose that there is non-EM-interacting mass (a lot of it apparently), than there being as yet unknown behaviours of gravity/spacetime geometry, which we like to think we understand pretty well.

Though I agree that we don't understand the universe as well as we like to think; and that the universe is not intuitive at all most of the time; and a preference based on how intuitively likely something seems is irrelevant to what the truth will turn out to be.

Edit: just FYI, I am not downvoting your responses by the way. I am not bothered if you dislike me or disagree with things I have said, though these two things should be distinct from each other.

I'm nobody and I didn't seek to "mansplain" anything whatever this term is supposed to mean. I was just talking, always happy to debate, something I thought people came here to do. I won't make the mistake again.

The known laws of physics have been formed on math that checks out and is consistent with all our other observations, and has made many predictions that have checked out and even formed the basis for technology that we use every day.

The way science works is that we form mathematical models of physical behaviour, we test model against real world data, and if the model is consistent with reality, and predicts further behaviours that we then can test for, the theory behind it holds water and we have something to work from.

If you like, you can think of it as building trust in a model, having courage in a theory isn't a mistake, it's how science has been built. Of course finding the errors and new laws is important, but you have to conclusively rule out the established theory first.

This is how we got to Newtonian mechanics instead of firmaments, elements, worlds of forms and mythologies, and how we got to medicine instead of humours, phlegms, biles and alchemy.

Adding mass that can't be seen preserves the body of theory of the standard model and doesn't raise any questions of why GR/QM work correctly for things like GPS etc.

In other words, dark matter is an answer that doesn't require going backwards.

Saying that gravity behaves differently to what we previously thought means that the standard model is only coincidentally right or only right in particular places, and from there where does the scepticism end? Where do you even start unravelling the tapestry?

Think about it in a diagnostic analogy. If your patient is critically ill, and you don't know why, you will prioritise testing for conditions that fit the symptoms and can actually be treated/cured. Because if it isn't treatable, the truth of what caused it isn't that important.

Occam's Razor as an argument against dark matter, but saying that gravity behaves differently — when our theories do not otherwise predict that it should behave differently — is actually less simple than saying there is more mass than can be detected via EM interaction.

The other point I would make is that dark matter can explain most if not all of the otherwise problematic observations, which makes it preferable over modifying the laws of physics, because as I understand it, doing this doesn't account for all of the problematic observations.

Again with an analogy to medicine, it is less likely to be three unrelated, coincidental conditions in one patient than a single condition if both diagnoses explain the same symptoms.

To frame everything I've said in a medical analogy, we have essentially treated for the condition we think it is, and we're trying to figure out why the condition has presented differently to typical cases, rather than ruling out the diagnosis and saying it is something else entirely — because the treatment is working. That is, the empirical evidence we have suggests that our diagnosis is correct, but we don't know everything there is to know about the condition.

Our GPS works, gravitational lensing has been observed, gravitational waves have been detected, we power our homes with nuclear reactors, we calibrate our most accurate clocks based on quantum mechanics, and so on. Particles we then predicted would exist have since been detected.

The patient had a fever. We treated the patient with antibiotics, and they got better, so we have reason to believe it's a bacterial infection — we just can't see the bacteria in the blood work. So the next logical step is to think of what presents and responds like a bacterial infection but isn't bacterial, or otherwise speculate that we have discovered something that does this, rather than question whether we understand the human body or whether thermometers work.

If in trying to confirm this discovery, we find that actually we don't really understand the human body or that our instruments are broken, that's when we should start looking to re-assess the laws of physics.

The standard model has no useful purpose if we don't place some trust in it to find new things. If we threw out our scientific models every time we encountered something we weren't expecting, we wouldn't make any progress at all.

The only reason dark matter raises so many eyebrows is (a) the popular press just loves to pick at it because it's an easy target with great headlining when your scientists are saying the majority of the universe is "missing"; and (b) because the breakthroughs of today are framed as being incremental compared to the big eureka moments of the 19th and 20th centuries which saw us leap from Newtonian mechanics to GR and QM. But between Newton and Einstein et al, there were centuries of incremental refinements/improvements on Newtonian mechanics and early modern astronomy, so why is there such impatience because we haven't found dark matter in barely a hundred years?

By definition, dark matter is going to be hard to detect because the only means of detecting it is merely enough to suppose that it exists, i.e. it interacts gravitationally but not electromagnetically, so we can only detect its gravitational influence on celestial bodies. Of course, it's the odd behaviour of celestial bodies that led us to suspect that dark matter was a thing in the first place, so this isn't very helpful.

I should think that, in order to prove dark matter exists, we shall have to imagine an edge case of what an extreme concentration of dark matter would do to nearby celestial matter and how that might be distinguished from conventional phenomena. Easier said than done, the universe is full of bizarre phenomena, much of which can be explained by GR and QM, and any remainders probably defy any remotely intuitive reasoning.

Alternatively, we shall have to imagine what phenomena might occur in situations where dark matter is absent, and where something can be modelled mathematically as being conclusively due to a lack of dark matter i.e. if gravity were to be different to Newtonian/GR, the phenomenon would never be seen, we can then say with confidence that dark matter is real.

To confirm it beyond any useful doubt, I suppose we would need to create conditions under which dark matter would form and observe the phenomena that occur, or build some kind of instrument that can detect gravitationally as accurately as we can detect electromagnetically. Again, easier said than done, EM force has a fundamental particle that we know very well, while gravity ... well the jury's still out on that. The graviton even if it were a thing would not be a particle in the same way, you can't have a quanta of gravity, when gravity is more of an emergent property of the geometry of spacetime? You can do the math as though it has a force carrier, but this isn't something that you expect to be able to manipulate as a particle in application.

Anyway, I'm away on a pretty hefty tangent now. The point is that it's more constructive to suppose that there is dark matter, since alternative theories (a) also include dark matter, to a lesser extent and (b) do not account for the observed behaviours without in some ways failing to predict behaviours we know and understand with known physics.

I've never bought an iPad or found use for the one I was once given as a present, I have seen older people transition from using cheap crappy laptops to iPads with only positive feedback, probably because it's easier for them to use.

It's largely the same UI as their smartphone which they'll be familiar with by now, it's easier to pick up and put down, smaller form factor but not so small that they'd be pinch-zooming frequently as they would on a phone, etc.

Anecdotal but it makes sense. Also marginally easier for a layperson to hold an iPad up and show a partner what they're buying, than a laptop.

Personally, I'm in the industry, and I've been playing with computers for 27 years. I have a phone for reading stuff like this on the go, and a laptop for working on things home or at the office. I have no professional or recreational use for a tablet. I have a laptop and I'm very glad it doesn't have a touchscreen. But I can understand why non-laptop products exist.

Couple of other developers I know have iPads, but they have them in the same way they have an electric toothbrush — they didn't need it, but they bought it anyway. Mostly see them use it for browsing the web or shopping after work. I suppose if your stuff's at the office and you just want to cruise the web, an iPad is lighter than a personal laptop, but I just use my phone /shrug emoji.

Some illustrators I know have iPads but I'm pretty sure they'd survive without them. For actual work they have a proper setup (wacom, magic trackpad), and if you need to sketch something on the fly, pen and paper is still a functional and low-cost solution, as is a phone since you have one already for a dozen other reasons.

Designers don't need an iPad at all, mouse is sufficient.

Lots of people have complained about moderation there but I think it's just a case of avoid the designated spam areas, and don't post nothing.

The latter part is how the HN community tends to self-curate comments anyway.

Port Windows 2000 to it, hit me up and name your price.

I adored that laptop. I loved how it felt, how it looked, how it sounded. I loved the beeps, I miss computers beeping and chattering to confirm that they are indeed powering on.

I loved the fan periodically revving every 30 minutes or so, reminding me that it was still alive but also putting into perspective that it had been utterly silent until that moment.

I still remember how the keyboard felt. Granted I wasn't doing much on it besides trawling through newsgroups and homework, but I haven't really come across a keyboard I've enjoyed typing on more.

The Filco keyboard I'm composing this comment on now isn't bad by any means, and I'm fairly happy with my Macbook's keyboard given its other strengths... but if I had the time, I'd find a way to get the 560E's keyboard on a laptop with a Chromebook Pixel's 2560x1600 screen and an M2 under the hood.

You may have noticed that a lot of the cliché philosophical questions haven't really shifted for as long as people have been asking them. It isn't because there is no answer, but rather the question itself is null and void. It's answer is beyond our ability to find or compute because you would have remove yourself from the human frame of reference to find it.

The meaning of life? Doesn't make sense outside of the context of human life. In that context, it's whatever you want it to be or decide it is to you. Outside, well, you'd have to die to see if there's anything beyond, and as Spock points out in ST4, it would be impossible to discuss without a common frame of reference with someone who hasn't died.

~~~

To claim that math is a human invention or a noumenal language of nature is futile, the answer is not within our ability to determine. It is, for all intents and purposes, undefined. Unknowable.

That's not to say that the conversation is meaningless, as the logical positivists would claim, as this is also a leap too far.

Early Wittgenstein, big influence on the logical positivists, didn't try to claim that philosophy was meaningless, just that if you try to talk beyond the facts, you won't get anywhere.

Bradley aways summed it up nicely for me: "anyone ready to dispense with metaphysics is a brother metaphysician with a rival theory of his own"

In other words, to rule out metaphysics (defined as concepts and ideas that lack empirical data or basis in fact) is to make a metaphysical proposition, since by definition, there is no data to disprove the metaphysical propositions, just as much as there is no data to validate them.

Most metaphysical philosophies caught on because they can be presented rationally as a chain of propositions and conclusions, but they only add up within their own framework that is upheld by an unprovable assumption or set of assumptions.

Example, cogito ergo sum makes perfect sense, provided that you accept that the speaker is I, that the speaker thinks rather than simply utters, and that to be means anything at all. In the end, cogito ergo sum can be accepted intuitively within the framework of "let's not be sceptical of every thing" but what can you conclude from it?

"I think therefore I am" well, I is a thing that thinks

-> "I thinks, therefore it exists" I think presupposes I's existence

-> "I thinks"

That is a definition of I

I = thinks === I is a consciousness

which is a tautology. And that's why is makes sense, because it doesn't go anywhere than where it started, it's algebra.

It starts off as a = b where b = a and can be reduced to simply a

Math is privileged in that its algebraic statements can be used to model things in the world because it's numbers and functions of numbers, but ultimately the usefulness emerges from proving that a equals a very complicated statement that isn't obviously tautologically equal, or not equal to, a.

Math is a tool. It's a way of reasoning that comes bundled with reasonably standardised notation that enables boosted productivity compared to reasoning about the same problems in regular languages.

~~~

It's the same reason why I find "simulated reality" questions rather dull. If the world is a perfect simulation, we have no way to distinguish it from the real thing, and so to our frame of reference, there is no difference about which we can have a discussion that makes any sense.

If there are cracks in the simulation, sure, then you have a fact to talk about. But then the discussion isn't philosophical, it's practical: We've been brain-hacked, what do we do? and the conversation ends rather abruptly.

Guess I'll keep a few physical copies of books after all.