I run full Windows 10 on a tablet (dual core, 2GB RAM), and it's pretty amazing to me how many websites that have no reason to run slow completely fail on it.
I can only imagine it works fine on dev machines with much faster quad+ cores and 64GB of RAM or whatever.
Just as an aside, it's done a lot to have the tablet be my primary "fiddle-at-home" machine: keeps me really conscious of resource limits, including ones I normally don't think of like screen size. (Most websites render terribly in landscape on a 10" tablet.)
Win10 just doesn't work well on 2GiB. Compressed pages are nice but not enough to prevent swapping. It also doesn't help that MS prevents you from running 32-bit on modern hardware to alleviate some of the memory pressure.
The solution is to install 32-bit Linux on it. Then it won't suck.
Windows works great, the issue is the applications, and indirectly the developers of said applications, some of which are on HN.
Most applications are requesting hundreds of megabytes if not entire gigabytes, the system will swap to death after you open an app and a browser tab on facebook.
I remember a friend who bought a 2GB netbook, the thing froze to death whenever he opened just eclipse, he had to return it.
> You should refrain from posting comments like you did here -- they make the community worse. You should also reconsider how you provide tech support, in general.
So an actively hostile comment in response to an opinionated one is somehow better and not measurably worse? You could just as easily have a discussion on why they think it objectively sucks, and you both may learn something from it.
I actually outlined why I thought they were wrong, and shut your mouth is clearly attached to not making subjective statements about other people's belongings (which, I absolutely stand by as inappropriate) -- so yes, an angry but on-point comment is better than just throwing out "lolsux" uselessly, or in the case above, based on wrong information.
"Shut your mouth" is indefensible on HN, and pointing at the other person is a low-quality move. Since you don't want to use this site as intended or take responsibility for misbehavior, I've banned the account.
That you disagree with my assessment that angry lead-ins to detailed responses to people insulting your things are appropriate, but feel insulting other people's belongings (while providing incorrect and useless tech advice) is appropriate -- or even constructive?
Because that's what you did say. (:
I (as you mighy expect) disagree with your assessment of what makes a functional community.
Society is not a force of nature such that its decrees carry the weight of natural law.
People can (and often should) resist what society decrees, because it's only through that dynamic tension of conflicting forces in society that we can reasonably advance.
> I believe it is a good thing that there are things society has deemed unacceptable and acknowledge that I give up some of my absolute freedoms to live in such a society.
You buried the lede -- your whole post is really dressing up why we shouldn't resist a societal decision you personally heavily agree with, while not giving real credence to people who disagree with you.
Pitching society-uber-als when society has made the choice you like is really cheap partisanship.
> Freedom of expression is not foundational. Certainly inciting violence, advocating genocide, or engaging in targeted and repeated harassment does not fall under the auspice of an unalienable and foundational right.
These are also things on which many people radically disagree with you. Stating them as facts is just begging the question.
> You buried the lede -- your whole post is really dressing up why we shouldn't resist a societal decision you personally heavily agree with, while not giving real credence to people who disagree with you.
That is a fair criticism. A counterpoint to my own post would be that pushing what is acceptable and questioning the norm is what has always driven progress, be it abolishing slavery, accepting other sexualities, religions, scientific views, etc. My point was rather that rights like expression are not absolute by the nature of the social contract. Requiring that they be unimpeachable is not compatible with living in a social structure.
> These are also things on which many people radically disagree with you. Stating them as facts are just begging the question.
There are people that disagree for sure. The point isn't that those, in particular, are universally agreed upon but that there exist limits to absolute freedom.
> > Freedom of expression is not foundational. Certainly inciting violence, advocating genocide, or engaging in targeted and repeated harassment does not fall under the auspice of an unalienable and foundational right.
> These are also things on which many people radically disagree with you. Stating them as facts is just begging the question.
I am among the ones who radically disagree. I want to live in a society where all of those things are allowed, but people are just smart enough to ignore them. I think this is a much better prospect since it decentralizes responsibility.
Sure, if you force people to behave a certain way, the conflict can be avoided.
The problem stems from the fundamental fact that a very small percentage of people are assholes, a faction of people are intent on forcibly silencing and harming assholes for being assholes, and a faction of people are intent on not permitting that second group of people to do so.
That's the problem: two groups of people are prepared to use force to enact their contrary visions, while a third (relatively small group) is catalyzing the conflict.
> [Subordinates] are used to being dominated and condescended. If you talk to them as respected individuals, you usually get respect back. It also gives more weight to the times you have to be more assertive.
This is actually pretty good advice for any time you're trying to manage people -- and kids are just little people.
One point of view I find helpful is the reverse, that people are just really old kids. It makes it easier to, within limits, accept and forgive irrational behavior (including my own!) while keeping a positive, growth-oriented mindset.
The Coding Horror blog has a great piece on how the book How to Talk So Kids Will Listen & Listen So Kids Will Talk helped him out with a lot more than just his kids.
Yes and because children are people rather than intellectual abstractions they need authority (not domineering but authority backed up by force nonetheless). A developing mind is like a nation, with many strands. I live in a relatively peaceful and advanced country but I know that if the police had their weapons and handcuffs taken away tomorrow then evil strands would quickly rise up and destroy everything.
> They have relatives, friends, aesthetic preferences, social obligations, religious beliefs, and other things that "do not compute" in mathematical models.
They compute fine -- most models are just "lying with math" by excluding the value of those things from their calculations.
It's not different than a friend who ignores those things when using words -- of course it doesn't make sense why you don't move if you don't account for the full value of where you are at present.
I think if we accounted for the destroyed social value that most of these economic models have inflicted, it would be the obvious massive negative that most people anecdotally tell. I think it's very telling how rarely you see these kinds of things modeled in economic theory despite how obviously part of the way humans value things they are.
Economics is merely institutionalized fixation on money, and produces precisely the psychopathic models you'd expect from that.
I agree, but poking holes in why they're excluded is important, because it let's you have this exchange --
"You can't argue with the math!"
"Well, hold on now, I think you left a whole bunch of things out!"
If you don't know where the problem in the math is, despite there being an extremely obvious problem, many people will ignore your objections. That's why they use math, to paper over their obviously poor behavior.
It seems to me we'd do better taking an empirical approach and pricing in widespread psychological realities.
For instance, it's clear that one of the things people don't do very well with, especially as they head into middle age and beyond, is big downward adjustments in lifestyle. It just doesn't accord with the expectation of upward mobility and progression through life anywhere, least of all in the land of the American Dream.
So, even when economic circumstances get worse, their spending tends to remain stubbornly high relative to the quantitative reality. It seems to me sanctimoniously chiding people for that is not a constructive response. It's clearly what most people do, in some measure. The question is how to best deal with that systemically, if in any way at all.
I think it takes less than most of us imagine -- but more than most of us are capable of organizing.
If you wanted to build complexes to stimulate the economy, you'd probably need on the order of... $100M in buildings, and another $100M in endowments for operating expenses/grants/risky loans.
So 200M is a lot, but it's also only the retirement wealth of 100-200 upper-middle class families, of which there will be thousands per major metro (and perhaps a million or so across the US).
I think it's mostly a logistics problem -- in those million families, there are probably 10,000 that are interested in resettling to the middle of the country and would be willing to move half of their wealth into local investments on a generational scale (while keeping the other half in say, the market).
That means we could do 250-500 self-sustaining mixed-use complexes backed by endowments for operations costs, which is probably enough to target 50-100 towns.
The question becomes the organizational aspects of those people finding each other, building trust (between each other and with the involved communities), and finding the appropriate legal instrument to manage the money on that scale.
These are all much harder problems than finding money or media attention.
> Integrity is always an option, but it's definitely not always an easy option.
Here's some anecdata:
I've been that shitbag without integrity, it's not actually any easier. (I actually think it's much harder.) Whatever energy you think you're saving by just going along with it, whatever profit you think you're getting out of it -- you're spending way more than that on maintaining the status quo.
I think a lot of the materialism and obsession with things like nice houses stems from the fact that when we step out of the shower and look in the mirror -- when we make eye contact with ourselves for that moment -- we're forced to admit that we just don't like the person we see. So we make the decorations around that moment nicer, obsessively, as if that will somehow change the encounter. This feeds into a cycle of needing every bigger fixes at ever greater expense to yourself, digging you deeper and deeper into dependence on it.
Whatever amount I'm "losing" in pay is worth it to change that reaction when I see myself -- to make the only required relationship in my life healthy and vibrant instead of toxic.
That said, I actually make more by being a trustworthy human that cares about the consequences of what he does, because it turns out that there's a) a need for that, since selfish behavior rapidly turns destructive in an organization and b) apparently a shortage of people willing to take the "easy" path.
People have been trying that, for at least a few decades.
Do facts like almost every American wants a more fair system change it? No, because the governing structure has itself been corrupted after decades of abuse.
Therefore, it seems the most effective means of causing change -- given that what you suggest has failed for decades -- would be to cause direct financial harm to those who are actively corrupting the system for their benefit, as that changes the calculus for them and incentivizes stopping.
This is a downright civil way to do that when society breaks down -- the poor used to just stab people over bad tax law.
> We frequently receive reports from community activists and other social media users who were blocked from commenting on an agency’s Facebook page, or prevented from contributing to a community discussion prompted by an officials’ tweet, or have faced similar barriers to participation in public debate. We receive reports about how governmental officials manipulate social media comments to exclude opposing views to create the impression that hotly contested policies are not contested at all. And we realize, in seeing how agencies use social media to quickly disseminate emergency information during the recent spate of natural disasters, that the ability to receive such messages can be a matter of life and death.
This is really the crux of why it's a First Amendment issue -- because that amendment is meant to protect discussion from that sort of manipulation by government.
