Oh ho ho. Next you're going to be questioning the "race to AI". It's like you want to be forced to read articles about raccoons with distemper, instead of buzzwordy tech FUD pieces, on slow news days. Is this what you want? Is it possible, dare I say it, that you might even want want us to lose the race to racing? Why are you rocking the boat?
Having saved myself a headache earlier by parsing some HTML with regex, I'm appreciating this post. On the other hand, if you don't obey dogma, it may impair the delivery of your cargo. Everything is a tradeoff.
There's a difference between admitting that corners need to be cut sometimes and arguing that cut corners are _correct_.
You didn't "parse HTML" with a regex; you created a solution to fix a very narrowly circumscribed problem by pattern matching on some string inputs. Big difference. Were an easy to use HTML parser (or likely lexer) readily available there'd be little excuse to cut corners as the proper solution would likely be far easier to prove correct (formally or informally) than the regex hack. (Full disclosure: I've written an HTML5-compliant streaming HTML lexer precisely so I--and others--would have less reason to depend on regex hacks in security scanners.)
The article says that the Linux approach proved good enough. No, it didn't. Linux has turned into a nightmare of security vulnerabilities, on par with Windows 95, just as originally prophesied. We only tell ourselves it's good enough because we're unwilling to admit we're where at. Remember when Linux and open source were paragons of security? Man, how times have changed....
But now we have a formally verified operating system in seL4, which is... [wait for it...] a microkernel. Of course, it's difficult to use as a general purpose OS, though not far from where Linux was in the 1990s. In time we'll get there. In the meantime no good comes from lying to ourselves about the nature of our solutions.
> Remember when Linux and open source were paragons of security? Man, how times have changed....
I remember a time when Linux was a paragon of security compared to the corresponding Windows version, Windows 95. I do not remember a time when Linux had no vulnerabilities. What happened is not that Linux got worse but that Windows got much better.
That monolithic kernels are more susceptible to attack because they're less resilient to programming errors. This was one of the arguments in the famous Linux v MINIX debate(s), but the notion that microkernels were more secure goes back to before the term microkernel was even coined (i.e. before 1980s).
I agree the housing seems low. For my county, it worked out to ~$750 a month for a single childless household. I’ve never seen a rent that low around me. I assume shared living must be on the table for this.
As for the other living expenses, and whether you’re on a hedonic treadmill:
* How many meals a month are from a restaurant of any kind?
* How many of the following do you have paid subscriptions for? Cable/satellite, HBO, Showtime, Netflix, Hulu, etc.
* Do you set your thermostat to lower than 75°F/23°C in the summer, or higher than 65°F/18°C in the winter?
* Do you buy cars new? Or almost always have a car payment?
* Any microwave meals or individually packaged snacks?
* Alcohol on any semi-regular basis?
* Coffee that’s more than 25¢ a cup?
None of the above are (moral) value judgements, but they’re really easy to get accustomed to and not consider as discretionary items.
> None of the above are (moral) value judgements, but they’re really easy to get accustomed to
Playing economic limbo with constantly updating 'how low can you go?' data as the stick may be possible to get accustomed to, but isn't necessarily very fun. Especially when gameplay becomes long-term and repetitive.
I'm not judging your list of examples in particular, but I think you may be a bit off the mark as to why threads like this appear at all.
Certainly the housing values are far below current costs for California. [1]
I assume this is because the data is averaged over what _current_ residents pay which will be dominated by mortgages taken out well in the past and perhaps affordable rentals not on the market. This will bring the average far down.
Anyone moving to or inside of California today could not survive on the Living Wages listed. Even they assume some 2/3 of post tax income going to that lower averaged housing cost.
tl;dr: they had nice jewelry, so it wasn't really dark
I don't understand why people feel the need to whitewash this, aside from a preexisting religious motive or mindlessly being contrary. Civilization went backwards after Rome fell. It took centuries to rediscover and reincorporate those parts of Western culture.
I worry that too many people secretly want to go back to being serfs.
No, Kuhn represented the "pro-humanities" view. The hard line was from Karl Popper: if it's not falsifiable, it's not science. If you can clearly demonstrate a violation of F = m*a, it's gone.
Popper's standards exclude sociology, psychology, theology, economics, and most of the "soft" sciences. This annoyed many people who claim to be doing science. Kuhn was willing to consider them science, but had to redefine science to make that work.
Falsifiable theories allow reliable predictions. So they lead to engineering, and stuff that works. Although Popper's position is currently unpopular, he wasn't wrong.
The shortcoming with that line of reasoning is that it's still not wholly satisfying. Falsifiability is probably necessary but not sufficient for what most people consider to be science. The problem of induction still stands and falsifiability doesn't have much to say about it. Focusing on falsifiability seems incomplete as a philosophy of science.
Actually what most people consider science is in line with Popper's view. When most people think science, they think the "hard sciences" - physics, biology, chemistry, etc. It's fairly recently that the idea of the "soft sciences" ( sociology, economists, etc ) being real science has become popular.
Richard Feynman called "soft science" a pseudoscience, which I completely agree with.
Humanities departments around the country essentially appropriated the good name of science at add more legitimacy to their "soft science". It's similar to how "christian science" or "scientology" appropriated the good name of science to legitimatize themselves in the eyes of the public. Creationists have even created creationism "science" to make themselves look more legitimate.
It doesn't really matter what you or SciAm think Kuhn believed, I'm telling you that the humanities faculty have used him to cosign the most outrageous anti-realist ideas imaginable. If you don't believe me, just take a class and find out!
On the configs I've seen, "killswitch" is a few lines that tell iptables to stop sending when the connection drops. I don't know how tunnenblick does it, but this might actually, and I'm not joking, be a job for applescript? Since it looks like wireuard doesn't do killswitch on its own. http://krypted.com/mac-security/command-line-firewall-manage... might be a starting point.
Well the postmodernists certainly cite Kuhn in support of their anti-reality drivel, but the real problem with Kuhn is that he was just wrong.
There's a mature science, where knowledge is limited but accurate, where new findings cause a recontextualization but no paradigm shift, and the previous knowledge is preserved within its new context,, and immature science, where people are doing things wrong, reaching conclusions with inadequate evidence, and stuff gets thrown out during a "paradigm shift", i.e. when they start doing mature science.
Examples of mature science are physics with the incorporation of relativity and quantum physics, which preserved Newtonian physics, or biology, where the human genome project revealed that there were 1/3 as many genes in humans as was previously thought, at which the field barely batted an eye and shifted in a heartbeat to looking more at gene regulation. Clearly, these are huge changes in the fields, but they don't rise to the level of a Kuhnian "paradigm shift" since the old knowledge and vocab and understandings were preserved.
What's an immature science? Probably the social sciences, or those areas of other fields where there's reproducibility problems, p-hacking, and other dysfunctions. To the extent that these fields have overarching paradigms, they may suffer a "paradigm shift". But in mature science, there just aren't any paradigm shifts, in the Kuhnian sense, happening, because a mature science has sufficient evidence in hand before generating a "paradigm".
Kuhn was wrong. But "Paradigm Shift" is a flashy phrase and it captured the zeitgeist of the time it was written. At this point, anything that helps tame this pop-philosophy-of-science phenomenon is not unwelcome, especially because, yes, Kuhn's writings are supporting anti-realist postmodernist trash, without being especially misread.
First, note that you are conflating Kuhn's talk of theories with talk of disciplines. The introduction of quantum mechanics enhanced the explanatory power of physics; it also sent alternative theories, which proposed too many factors or more poorly explained the world, to the dustbin.
On that note, can physics be called a "mature science," then? To reconcile relativistic and quantum physics—both of which provide limited but very accurate and useful results—would be a paradigm shift; it would require the revision of large parts of one or both theories to be able to combine them without contradiction.
There are core ideas in each of these theories which are not simply revisable: they are connected with too many others. Peripheral ideas are malleable; the precise number of genes isn't very important if we can still explain protein variety (via alternative splicing and other modifications).
