Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
View
Sort
Coming soon

I hope to hell then that you're paying yourself a dividend and not a salary. You won't pay into CPP or EI, which you may not collect anyways and you'll pay a FAR LOWER tax rate. Invest the tax savings into an RRSP and TFSA and be the master of your own fate. Being doing this for years.

see more
3 points · 1 day ago

Any problems doing this? Like with credit rating etc?

None, except that you're limited to how much you can offer as a dividend. It's $40,000 IIRC (bear in mind the corporation has to pay the 16% gross-up tax before this).

It's not as lucrative as it sounds.

see more
1 point · 1 day ago

sounds like extra bookkeeping headache too

Load more comments

US debts will never get called..... our military guarantees that.

see more
2 points · 3 days ago

You're saying it's a ponzi scheme. As long as the US keeps finding people to borrow money from, it can afford to intimidate people into not calling in the debt.

The problem is that there is not an infinite supply of people (and the resources to keep said people alive). At some point, you exhaust the supply of suckers. (Suckers here being people willing to be oppressed by an economic empire)

Let's not forget the cost of keeping ahead of other militaries can also grow without bound, and it's not guaranteed that all of these expensive options are guaranteed to win against cheap options. A billion dollar aircraft carrier can be sunk with a few cheap hypersonic cruise missiles.

-35 points · 5 days ago

Huh? Is there something problematic with the advice I gave?

see more
9 points · 5 days ago

Now is when you run them over and speed away.

Original Poster-3 points · 10 days ago

I think you're assuming what the purpose and design of the system is, and then deciding that the system that exists does not fit your pre-conceived notion of what it is.

is this your version of "the US isn't a democracy but a republic"? then what are elections meant to do other than to (democratically) represent the people? just asking for clarification because it sounds like you're accusing me of saying that the entire state of the USA is based on the principle of legislative elections, and I'm not saying this. the judiciary, for instance, is not "democratic".

Perhaps this is by design to avoid an overly dynamic and overly reactive system that will easily fall to trends and fashions that may not be in the long-term interest of the country.

"perhaps"? what would demonstrate that? did the founders say that FPTP was designed to engender a de facto two party system? what, too, is "the long term interest of the country"? what, here, is "the country" and who decides what is in its interests? two parties? I don't have an issue with the principle that long term interests are paramount in a constitutional system, but I don't see how this is executed by a two party system - you can have either a two party system where there are two very different parties (i.e. the UK today) or a two party system that is extremely moderated (the USA, hitherto)

The original intent was that the more dynamic an issue was, the more local it's corresponding law was meant to be. The federal government was meant for very static and unchanging things that affect all states. It was made correspondingly difficult to enact change. As you want and desire more dynamic laws, you move to more local politics, ending up ultimately at the individual governing his/herself.

wait, so they manufactured presidential* elections to not* be static, because if not for the influence of the rural areas the industrial areas via population would dominate every time, yet you're saying that congressional elections and their overall principle is the opposite of that? I don't know why you'd figure this

Now you (and I) might argue that the goals of the system do not align with the needs of the currently existing United States. This might be true. But your view that the design is "poor" is clearly wrong IMO. It was carefully designed for a purpose.

again, I'm not talking about the "US federal presidential constitutional republic"~. I'm only talking about the mechanics of elections; I don't think it's realistic to suppose that what became of the FPTP system was what the founders wanted, because clearly it's not particularly democratic (or I'll use another word; "representative") to have one party more than a one party state in reality - perhaps in previous iterations of the system in the early 1800s there were more than just two parties in circulation, but I highly doubt that, in a nation as big as the US, a FPTP would have floated multiple parties, ever, because the FPTP system massively favours two big parties, and if you get a somewhat large party getting some successes in some areas, that success as a precedent will only drift into other areas, making the party in question massive, like the two big parties are today

see more
18 points · 10 days ago

accusing me of saying that the entire state of the USA is based on the principle of legislative elections

Not sure where you got this from?

I don't have an issue with the principle that long term interests are paramount in a constitutional system, but I don't see how this is executed by a two party system

Insofar as it is a republic, the federal government of the USA is meant to be difficult to change by cabals or small factions who might push a narrow agenda of change. It stands to reason that only large cabals and large factions (parties) with broad agendas can enact change at the federal level. The fact that the US has two parties is incidental IMO. It could be three or four. But I'm saying the design excludes small factions from having sweeping federal influence. And heck, that might even be a good thing. Who wants brownshirts with a narrow agenda capturing the federal government?

wait, so they manufactured presidential* elections to not* be static, because if not for the influence of the rural areas the industrial areas via population would dominate every time, yet you're saying that congressional elections and their overall principle is the opposite of that? I don't know why you'd figure this

The design was meant to strike a balance clearly. Elections prevent small factions from getting too much power in general. But even if a small faction takes control, elections ensure the government can return to sanity within a reasonable timeframe.

I'm only talking about the mechanics of elections

So am I? Elections in general are basically a way to see what factions within a country can field the most votes for a particular agenda. The US system makes this even more true by introducing an electoral collage and limiting the participation of smaller parties. This introduces a sort of stability at the federal level (it was intended at the time that the federal government was not so all-encompassing).

Now I'm not saying this is a good design for our present conditions, but your assertion was that it was "poorly designed". I don't think you can argue that. It's doing what was intended.

Insofar as it is a republic, the federal government of the USA is meant to be difficult to change by cabals or small factions who might push a narrow agenda of change. It stands to reason that only large cabals and large factions (parties) with broad agendas can enact change at the federal level. The fact that the US has two parties is incidental IMO. It could be three or four. But I'm saying the design excludes small factions from having sweeping federal influence. And heck, that might even be a good thing. Who wants brownshirts with a narrow agenda capturing the federal government?

I'm not understanding this. Small factions can never have power because they're, well, small. You seem to be saying that if some ultra-right wing party somehow got two seats (or even 10) in Congress this would be some kind of disaster.

Being from a country where small parties are common, I find actually having a right wing party represented at a national level relieves a lot of pressure. They're not big enough to have actual power, but they have influence in exactly the proportion that the population wants. No-one can claim they're being ignored because everyone is represented by somebody.

I agree with you that the system is probably working as intended, it's just not as effective as it could be. And it was very probably the best choice for the period it was designed in.

see more
2 points · 10 days ago · edited 10 days ago

No I agree with you that everyone can be at the table if they get the votes, and further that this is a good idea.

But in the US, very small parties could swing the government easily. They don't really have the notion of a parliamentary minority party, so they are deathly-susceptible to single-issue minority swing parties. But it's backwards: the small party pulls support from more moderate large parties.

Their solution is to have very limited support for small parties and require a higher bar of success through a difficult primary, a difficult electoral collage, and high bar of entry for candidacy in federal elections (e.g., running in all 50 states). The electoral collage in particular means only issues with broad support across the country can register [more than] a single seat.

The reason this design was (supposed to) work for them is that the US is (meant to have) a weak federal government with powerful state governments who set most of the policy. In that situation you want only parties who represent all states to be in the running at the federal level.

Load more comments

2 points · 12 days ago

The compiled code is the same. If you're after a cleaner and better style, you should prefer if x == y { return c; } return k;.

This style helps with a few different problems:

  1. Helps with keeping nesting to a manageable level. Why introduce unnecessary nesting that reduces horizontal space?
  2. Emphasizes to maintenance programmers that the code path in the conditional branch always terminates.
  3. Encourages the "bail early" style of functions without deep nesting. Check all your preconditions and exit early, if none return early; do the main body. e.g., if x == z { return c + 1; } if x == y { return c; } return k();.
  4. Makes static analyzers happy.

The only reason I can think of to prefer if return else return is if the logic in the then branch is already deeply nested. But even still, I usually refactor such functions to less nested style.

return x==y ? c : k;

is way better imo. Multiple statements on a single line is way worse than any of the benefits you describe. HUGE pita to debug, and visually confusing. There should almost always be only one statement on every line. I make some exceptions for really tiny lambdas.

see more

I was speaking generally about if/else logic. Of course if it's representable as a single condensed expression it makes more sense to just write it as an expression.

Or efficient? If it’s cheaper to import the oil and sell your own oil than to build a huge pipeline?

see more
3 points · 12 days ago

There are huge pipelines; they just go south, not east.

2

So if i go to front page and click a self-post, everything scrolls really slowly and reddit feels like a turd (< 5fps). If I hit refresh, the page is suddenly ok (60fps locked scrolling). Perhaps related to not cleaning up the previous page when clicking to comments since the old page remains visible in the background when I click?

Anyway, I've gotten into the habit of just refreshing every time to fix this issue.

2
4 comments

Check CPU stats before and after you refresh

see more
Original Poster1 point · 16 days ago

Clean either way. iMac Pro 16 core with top GPU so unlikely my machine.

I meant to compare if the site's loading you down with some extra shit over time vs random errors and retries.

see more
Original Poster1 point · 16 days ago

no it's pretty reproducible regardless on a couple of different computers. Looks like it's the alpha blending on the edges of the screen that cause the FPS drop. If I use dev tools and delete the background it's fine. I just disabled beta for now.

The hungry mammals and insects could actually be part of the key to getting those ecosystems to thrive properly, through trophic cascades. Though the likelihood of such an ecosystem thriving where there has only been pesticide intensive monoculture is not so optimistic. Would definitely be a lot of work.

see more
4 points · 1 month ago

our best hope is a "trophic cascade" that regrows grasslands after human fencing and roads are decaying enough that herbivores can rebuild the prairies over the deserts we've made (midwest; africa; gobi). but climate change might preclude that chance now. grass might not survive there again for another million years.

Can you ELI5: what is bitrate?

see more
2 points · 1 month ago

ELI5: It's a bit like watching 480p on a 1080p monitor. The low-quality data is encoded into a larger file. There are more details (different encodings can support higher or lower quality depending on how much time was taken to encode, and transcoding doesn't have much time to do a great job) but that's the basics here.

34 points · 1 month ago

I think all of these special regulations and conditions on legalization are ripe for challenge in court. Either the stuff is illegal for a good reason, or we should have all reasonable freedoms. This half-and-half business smacks of government overreach.

Are humans not wild? Are we domesticated? By whom?

see more
9 points · 1 month ago

You’re trained to follow more tricks and rules than any dog.

Why havent we gone that route? Expenses?

see more

The weight of the heat shield is less than the weight of retro rockets. Less weight to launch into space is cheaper.

It's just four months.

It gives provinces and industry an appropriate amount of time for implementation, and helps ensure a smoother rollout.

see more

You make it sound like a new product from apple. We're talking about not arresting and putting people in prison anymore. Why wait?

11 points · 1 month ago

Really want to put C++ modules into production. When is that going to happen on the cmake side?

-2 points · 2 months ago

How much natural resources would be consumed to construct such a monster system. Sounds like another form of a paperclip maximizing machine.

37 points · 2 months ago

Not just correctness, but also better optimization: two std::string & parameters might refer to the same value, but a Name & and Email & are inherently different types and allow for the compiler to optimize the code as such. It's a negative-cost abstraction.

see more
6 points · 2 months ago · edited 2 months ago

Exactly right. There have been proposals in the past to add strong typedefs with sound anti-aliasing. If I recall the strawman syntax was meant to look like strong enums; and looked like:

[template <typename T>] newtype NotInt : T [ = default | = deleted | {
     // api that will be forwarded to underlying T 
}]

So you could do:

newtype Name : std::string = default;

which means copy the api of std::string into a new type called Name. You could also selectively pull declarations into the newtype:

newtype Name : std::string {
    Name();
    Name(Name const&);
    const char * c_str();
};

and then only those three functions would be usable on Name (which would be transparently mapped to std::string's versions of them)

This was deemed too radical at the time (around the time of c++11) so proposal was scrapped.

Damn that would be fantastic :( why is it too radical ?

see more
1 point · 2 months ago · edited 2 months ago

The newtype proposal i mention above was pushed into an "alternatives" section of a bigger proposal paper (N3635), modified heavily to ensure it solved the parent paper's goals (implicit conversions, alias_cast, etc), and removed from subsequent versions of that paper entirely. The paper was trying to add restrict semantics to c++ and was (rightly) rejected by the committee eventually because C-style restrict is a terrible way to deal with this problem. newtype is a much more general approach but the authors wanted a more compact proposal to fit corporate goals. There were other proposals at the time too, like n3515.

1 point · 2 months ago · edited 2 months ago

You don't heat your home?

edit: I gave you an upvote, I was being a smartass. Not sure why you're getting so many unnecessary downvotes for your observation.

see more
5 points · 2 months ago

It seems like I shouldn't have to point this out it's so obvious, but HVAC includes cooling. I like many Canadians don't have cooling. Just heating and a dehumidifying ventilator. We don't call it a HVAC. we call it a furnace.

I think the elite want a clean break. Why would they try to slow down now? It’s in their interest to cut their opponent down to size with its own momentum.

I'm gonna say that while you bring up a lot of good points I'm still reckon that to say

Yes, of course technology has slowed down.

is bullshit. And I say that politely.

We have self-driving vehicles, virtual reality, immense connectivity. There is some great progress toward medical breakthroughs. Cures for cancer that look very promising. Alternatives to antibiotics. There's a renewed space race. Renewable energy and battery tech is getting somewhere. I'm really only scratching the surface here.

I won't say these are all good for us, and we certainly aren't properly invested in green tech. But technology as a whole hasn't slowed down.

see more
2 points · 3 months ago

You're making my point for me. I appreciate the effort in attempting to call bullshit though.

We have self-driving vehicles

Cars are a bigger technological leap than self-driving cars. And required much less investment.

virtual reality

Extra complications and social issues. Doesn't really help anything of note, but required decades of research. Is VR doing anything more for society than... say TV did?

immense connectivity

Again, like with cars above, What's bigger news, the phone network or ubiquitous mobile phones? I think the leap occurred with phones, and everything else since then has been incremental and marginally more useful.

There is some great progress toward medical breakthroughs

Marginal "breakthroughs" that don't really change the fundamental health of people. In the old days, a researcher could leave his window open by accident and discover one of the most potent antibiotics in history. Now we fight tooth and nail to keep ahead of of the curve of antibiotic resistance. Cancer "cures" and "prevention" are not being developed and this comes down to where the profit is.

There's a renewed space race

Is there? I haven't noticed that I suppose. Who is racing? Where are they racing to? I've seen some private companies just barely get into space with the help of massive government subsidies. Does that count as a space race?

Renewable energy and battery tech is getting somewhere.

Battery tech isn't really "getting somewhere" compared to... the invention of the battery. And it's all incremental diminishing returns. Renewable energy has almost zero energy density when compared to diminishing fossil energy. I mean, I use solar personally, but that's not because it's better than oil. I use it because oil has pollution issues I don't feel comfortable contributing to. But it means changing my lifestyle to use... less energy. Because it's not as good as oil.

I'm really only scratching the surface here.

More like scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Cars are a bigger technological leap than self-driving cars. And required much less investment.

What? Says who? The technology involved to create a car is extremely primitive. Making one drive itself is exponentially more difficult. From a users perspective of driving a car vs. passenger of self-driving car seems trivial, but the technology is not.

Extra complications and social issues. Doesn't really help anything of note, but required decades of research. Is VR doing anything more for society than... say TV did?

That wasn't my point, or yours. I actually agree with you. But that doesn't distract from the fact that a lot of tech has gone into creating believable VR environments. I find it as pointless as you, but it's still technology.

I think the leap occurred with phones, and everything else since then has been incremental and marginally more useful.

Again, because you don't see the science and tech that went into that 8-core, low voltage, CPU in your phone doesn't mean it didn't happen. You seem to be confusing the end-user experience for technological progress. A biological CPU (being worked on) is a huge technological leap, but the end-user may barely notice.

Who is racing?

Lol, you know exactly what I meant.

And it's all incremental diminishing returns. Renewable energy has almost zero energy density when compared to diminishing fossil energy.

Again, I'm not suggesting any of this technological progress is useful or worth our time. I'm simply stating that it exists and his happening right now.

see more
2 points · 3 months ago · edited 3 months ago

The technology involved to create a car is extremely primitive. Making one drive itself is exponentially more difficult. From a users perspective of driving a car vs. passenger of self-driving car seems trivial

Yes, this is my point. Thank you for re-stating it. It's easy to make a car compared to a self-driving car, but the utility of a car is much much higher than the bonus utility you get from having a self-driving car. Cars are cheap to invent and give you a lot. Self-driving cars are expensive to invent, but don't really give the driver or society much extra bonus.

What will cause more progress for civilization? The car? or the self-driving car? It's obviously the car. Put another way, which would you rather our civilization do without? Would you rather go from self-driving cars to driver-driven cars, or from cars of any kind to walking? Now answer honest, which is responsible for more progress? (putting aside the pollution issue I have with consumerism and cars in general)

That wasn't my point, or yours.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth in bad faith. My point has always been in this thread that marginal utility has declined extremely far. There are different ways it's declined (e.g., my original list of 5)

Again, because you don't see the science and tech that went into that 8-core, low voltage, CPU in your phone doesn't mean it didn't happen

The question is, has technological progress been slowing down? The answer is yes, because it takes all of this innovation and cost just to stand still or even go backwards. No progress is being made anymore! Technological wizardry is required just to make pixels refresh 5% faster. The fact that there is simply more technology does not mean we're getting more progress out of it. Quite the contrary in my opinion. As the costs of technology continue to rise, but the utility falls, we're crossing into the realm where more technology hurts, and so people tune out on purpose to avoid the costs.

Lol, you know exactly what I meant.

I am honest. There is no space race going on right now as far as I can tell. Am I not following the right /r/futurology channels?

** Edit** I should add that I'm a technologist. I've worked on AI and high performance graphics. I'm not just guessing here. I'm aware of what underlying developments belie our modern tech stack. I'm talking about real technological progress though, not just development for it's own sake.

It's like picking the apples from a tree: you start with the easy ones and vastly and easily improve your life, then you have to make evermore bold efforts to get apples, until you're teetering on the edge of some over-tall ladder risking life for just one more bite. And at some point, you pick all the apples anyway, but still pretend that building taller ladders will get you more food.

Load more comments

2 points · 3 months ago

This sort of chart shows why electric heaters are such a bad idea. If you just burn raw fuel for heat, most of your fuel goes towards creating heat. But if you use the fuel to turn a generator, which pushes current down a transmission line to an electric heater, lots of the heat is left as rejected heat along the pipeline. I wonder to what extent this applies to other electrification projects, like electric cars.

Despite being interested in this I've overlooked how much of the oil goes to just transporation. I thought a majority of oil went to products and heating so EVs make even more sense than I originally thought.

see more
2 points · 3 months ago

thought a majority of oil went to products

Oil products would not be included in an energy chart.

But what is the speed of light in this equation? Is it speed of light per second or hour? In miles or kilometers?

see more
8 points · 3 months ago · edited 3 months ago

Units don't matter here as long as you're consistent. They cancel with units in E and m. If you break it all down to basic units:

energy is `(mass * length^2) / time^2`
mass is... `mass`
`c` is `length/time`

filling those into

e = m * c^2

we get:

(mass * length^2)/ time^2  = mass * (length/time)^2

notice that it's just rearranging things at this point. It's tautological.

But why is energy defined as those particular units? Energy is a force applied for a distance. force * length. What is force? We usually use newtons, but you can express it as mass * length / time^2. What does that mean? Force is what is required to accelerate an object with 1 unit of mass to 1 unit of acceleration. Acceleration is measured in length/time^2.

Edit: In a sense, the speed of light is the correction factor for our strange earthly units like m, kg, newtons, and whatnot. Physicists set the speed of light equal to 1, so that e = m.

All food and water is chemical.

see more
37 points · 3 months ago

All birds are dinosaurs but we still say dinosaur conversationally to mean the extinct megafauna. What was meant by parent was that biologically toxic chemicals are present and causing problems for the whole food chain.

Solar panels might be negative in short term, but over their lifetime? If I burn the tree today, it is gone today. A solar panel can be used for a few decades. Does it not pay off over the useage time of 20-30 years?

see more
3 points · 3 months ago

First let me say I'm not saying solar pv is bad. It's just not as good as a sustainable woodlot.

If I burn the tree today, it is gone today.

True, but trees are not only embodying energy, they're also building themselves.

A solar panel can be used for a few decades. Does it not pay off over the useage time of 20-30 years?

Perhaps at some point solar panels can become energy-positive, if they survive hail and degraded components. But again, when you take the systems perspective, you'll see the comparison i mean to make. Imagine you had to fully "pay back" all input energy before getting a harvest (like with trees). You'd be waiting 5-20 years before you get a single watt out of your solar system. Same deal with trees really. Except trees are carbon neutral, too. You still have to wait to accumulate the excess energy, but in the mean time, all that carbon gets put into the tree. Solar panels put the carbon emissions up front and never recapture their own production CO2, unless you play accounting games through offsetting some dirty energy source.

u/pherlo
Karma
5,182
Cake day
March 29, 2012
Moderator of these communities
r/AlbertaHomestead

23 subscribers

Trophy Case (1)
Six-Year Club

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.