Very cool that the author was able to use a profiler without source code and even add debug symbols, but...the actual conclusion (a third-party script using a third-party scripting system the author had installed but never mentioned until the end was the culprit) was so obvious of a first thing to check that it made the post feel a bit contrived.
It's like if someone wrote up a post detailing a step-by-step teardown of their vehicle's engine to determine why they were suddenly getting worse gas mileage, only to end with "oh, you know what, it's probably the giant always-open drag parachute I installed right before I started getting bad gas mileage. Let me try removing that now that I've ruled out every accessible part of the engine."
I think much of human history (not just recent US history, but that's a prominent example on folks' minds these days) proves that the biggest differentiator that the wealthy can buy is complete immunity from any sort of legal consequences.
Even if you don't already live in a high-corruption society, you can either spend some of your wealth introducing that corruption (which pays dividends), or you can just go somewhere else that's already high-corruption and bribe your way into immediate permanent residence.
Live in a democracy? Just buy public opinion by leveraging your wealth into a highly-profitable propaganda network, which will also give you an appealing platform for opportunist would-be government officials, who will then owe you, making your bribes cheaper. Maybe you can even just directly blackmail or entrap them along the way, so you don't even have to pay.
Live in an autocracy? Buy enough weaponry and PMCs to insulate yourself or even rival the government itself, or just buy the autocrat's favor directly.
Live in an oligarchy? Psh, your work is already done. Just use the system as it's designed: to be exploited by your vast wealth.
Sam Bankman-Fried believed this, and it turned out not to be that simple. But it's very noticeable how the US is trying to set up a system of protected Party insiders.
Worth noting that F# started out life as an implementation of OCaml for the .NET runtime [1], so most likely the pipe syntax was taken from there, although the pipeline-of-functions construction is much older than that [2]
OCaml took the '|>' pipe symbol from F#. And F# was the language that made the '|>' pipe symbol popular in mainstream programming (as opposed to the unix '|' pipe symbol), afaik. According to Don Syme, it was used in F# in 2003 (see "Early History of F#", section 9.1, [1] which references [2]).
Here's his full comment:
/quote
Despite being heavily associated with F#, the use of the pipeline symbol in ML dialects actually originates from Tobias Nipkow, in May 1994 (with obvious semiotic inspiration from UNIX pipes) [archives 1994; Syme 2011].
... I promised to dig into my old mail folders to uncover the true story behind |> in Isabelle/ML, which also turned out popular in F#...
In the attachment you find the original mail thread of the three of us [ Larry Paulson; Tobias Nipkow; Marius Wenzel], coming up with this now indispensable piece of ML art in April/May 1994. The mail exchange starts as a response of Larry to my changes.
...Tobias ...came up with the actual name |> in the end...
/endquote
Haskell has had "$" or "backwards pipe" for ages, but that is just another way of doing function application and it does not feel the same as (and is not used the same way as) the unix-style piping paradigm.
I recently swapped from the F-Droid version of AntennaPod to the Google Play Store version so that I could use Chromecast, which they strip from their F-Droid builds because the underlying library isn't open-source and is deemed "impure" by F-Droid (it gets you a "This app has features you might not like" banner, when honestly it's a feature I specifically want).
A similar thing is true of Tempo (a Subsonic-client music player), where the F-Droid builds have Chromecast support stripped out, but the GitHub-published builds have it (so I also have to install Obtanium to get those updated).
"I want to listen to my audio on my devices in my house" is a weird thing to exclude in the name of open-source purity.
Otherwise, I love F-Droid. I just wish they had a bit more nuance to recognize that Chromecast support isn't the same as "constantly reports your location in the background to corporate servers", and so those shouldn't have the same severity of warning banners applied.
>We don't think we have the competence to be a teacher. We would never presume to teach someone else's kids.
While this is a good and rational awareness of one's own capabilities, as someone who grew up in Bible-belt homeschooling circles and saw a wide variance in approaches and effectiveness, the "homeschool co-op"/"homeschool group" model where one parent teaches one subject to many kids, classroom-style, is super common. See, for example, "Classical Conversations" [1], a pretty common one in my area, that leans on "parent as classroom teacher to many kids", without much in the way of prerequisite qualifications.
The population of New Orleans is less than 10% of the population of Louisiana. Also, I'm not aware of a single metric by which Louisiana is considered to be last place in K-12 education in 2024. State PISA scores are basically on par with California, spending per student is higher than Nevada. It's certainly no Massachusetts, I've seen it ranked around 40th out of 50 on different metrics, but I think you're revealing some ignorance in assuming Louisiana's school system is ranked last in the nation.
Pure economics and rational decision making are the exact reasons for engaging in regulatory capture, bribery, and oligarchy.
Why on earth would democracy (or any other form of shared power) be a rational choice for you, from an economic standpoint, if you already are wealthy enough to neuter it to the point where nearly all profits and decision-making authority are allocated to you?
Dictatorship is the ultimate in rational decision-making for a rational self-interested actor. Philanthropy and benevolence are not rational for the wealthy and powerful.
Income inequality and regulatory capture are features of the free market, not bugs. They are baked in by design.
Most countries in the world "patch" those bugs by regulation that moves them away from being pure "free market" economies. Antitrust regulation is a well-known example of this.
To play the devil's advocate here, as someone who grew up homeschooled and in a culture of "micro-scale evolution exists, but macro-scale evolution has not been demonstrated":
>Antibiotic resistance
...is a micro-scale adaptation, like an organism's immune response. Recognizing it does not require belief in a prehistoric common ancestor for all organisms; it just requires observing changes that happen on a much smaller and more rapid scale.
>Existence of vestigial structures in organism. Why do humans get goosebumps when we don't have enough hair to insulate us? Because it's an evolutionary leftover from our hairy ancestors when the reflex would actually cause hair to trap more air for better insulation.
This is non-falsifiable conjecture about a pre-historic past based on observation of present structures. It is equivalent to "we obviously know that dinosaurs did not have feathers, because their skeletons do not have feathers, and feathers would have made them more visible to predators, so they wouldn't have had feathers."
>Understanding evolution is crucial for crop management. The development of pesticide resistance in insects follows the same principles as antibiotic resistance.
...which, again, is a micro-scale adaptation, like an organism's immune response. You can notice pesticide resistance occurring in pests and rotate your pesticides without having to sign on to the unverifiable claim that this happens because all life derives from a single organism.
>Medical research often relies on animal models because of shared evolutionary history. Our biological similarities with other mammals exist because of common ancestry. Without this framework, it becomes harder to understand why medicines tested on mice or primates might work in humans, or why certain diseases affect multiple species similarly.
This is more non-falsifiable distant-past conjecture based on observation of current structures. Is it necessary to believe a particular set of conjectures about the origins of mammals' biological similarities in order to recognize the fact in front of you that the mammals are biologically similar, and thus some mechanisms of action may apply across species, provided those similarities are retained?
>Human susceptibility to back and knee pain is a consequence of how recent bipedalism is in our evolution. Same for why humans are so prone to chocking, our larynx evolved to enable speech at the cost of making it easier for food to enter it.
...which, again, is non-falsifiable distant-past conjecture that has no bearing on recognizing the existence of the verifiable current-day reality in front of you: humans have back and knee pain. Is it necessary to accept a particular set of unprovable conjectures about the distant-past origins of this particular skeletal structure in order to make decisions about how best to treat a symptom that exists today resulting from the skeletal structure that you see immediately in front of you?
But the micro vs. macro distinction is only one of time and scale and that's the whole point: species aren't "real," even fish aren't "real" in any ontological sense, but the countless organisms that we categorize as such existed, exist, and will continue to exist regardless of how we conceive of them.
The ask of evolution and science in general is to accept the incredibly narrow capacity of human cognition as a starting point for an even deeper understanding rather than an end goal to rationalize towards.
>But the micro vs. macro distinction is only one of time and scale and that's the whole point: species aren't "real," even fish aren't "real" in any ontological sense, but the countless organisms that we categorize as such existed, exist, and will continue to exist regardless of how we conceive of them.
This is an excellent rebuttal to the micro/macro distinction, because it's working in the correct direction, which you've stated well:
>to accept the incredibly narrow capacity of human cognition as a starting point for an even deeper understanding rather than an end goal to rationalize towards.
Using the notion of "species" as a "ground truth", as though it were some biological law, is a self-defeating point precisely because the definition of "species" is "a somewhat-arbitrary taxonomy developed by people to try to group organisms together based on observed common traits."
Want to have your mind blown? The creationist fallacy of "irreducible complexity" isn't just wrong for eyeballs and flagellum but for upward complexity as well. And lateral complexity.
OK, for falsifiable how about evolution predicts patterns of genetic similarity between species that match their apparent morphological relationships - a correlation that didn't have to exist but does.
That's not what falsifiable means. It's not experimentally verifiable. There is no way to conduct a test that would negate it if it were untrue.
It is why, being intellectually honest, the theory of evolution as the origin of species is called a "theory" in the academic sense: it's a proposed model that fits the data available on hand, but which has not been experimentally verified in its premise. Short of time-travel, I'm not sure how it can be experimentally verified.
"Falsifiable" means "I can construct an experiment that could yield an outcome that directly demonstrates this idea as false." This is sort of like the difficulty that exists with the four-color theorem [1]: yes, you can run a lot of examples using computer-assisted proof tech, but at best what that tells you is "we haven't found a counterexample yet."
Except, for non-falsifiable claims like the theory of evolution as the origin of species, there is no experiment you can run to provide a counterexample. The theory covers any possible counterexamples by simply saying "that form of life must have evolved from a different origin point and/or under different conditions (regardless of whether we can recreate those conditions)", and tucks any counterexample in neatly into itself without feeling threatened by falsifiability. It is "total" by having an "escape hatch" for any counterexamples.
That stacks it up alongside "a deity made everything, and designed an ordered universe with certain mechanics, including giving organisms the ability to adapt"; both are explanations that fit the available data, but neither can be experimentally verified. Similarly, that theory is "total" by having an escape hatch: "well, maybe the deity did something different in that case." Young-earth Creationists do this with visible starlight that is a million or more lightyears away: "maybe God just accelerated that starlight so that humans would have a pretty night sky."
That tendency is similar to "maybe the [hypothetical] organisms on Mars adapted from a different common ancestor that maybe was made of non-living substances that are similar to the non-living substances that comprised Earth's first organism." Boom, done, no need to re-examine the premise, you just fold it in with "maybe the same magic worked a little differently over there," just like saying "maybe God made starlight go faster in the direction of Earth."
As long as you don't engage in denial of the available data because of your theory, then I don't understand why holding a particular non-falsifiable theory is mandatory.
It doesn't matter if I hold to the theory that the universe began as an origin-less hypercompressed single point of matter suddenly and rapidly decompressing...if I'm in the lab next to you claiming that vaccines cause autism. The problem is not which non-verifiable theory I hold about an unrelated subject, but rather my denial of the available data on hand.
Similarly, it doesn't matter that Louis Pasteur was a Creationist when discussing the mechanisms he discovered by which vaccines work. What matters is his recognition of the reality of the data at hand, and his work to explore and build on it.
It's like if someone wrote up a post detailing a step-by-step teardown of their vehicle's engine to determine why they were suddenly getting worse gas mileage, only to end with "oh, you know what, it's probably the giant always-open drag parachute I installed right before I started getting bad gas mileage. Let me try removing that now that I've ruled out every accessible part of the engine."
reply