SwingingTheLamp

When I was born, the United States wasn't involved in a war.

Reminds me of an old Yakov Smirnoff routine. Espresso powder makes espresso, and milk powder makes milk. So what does baby powder make?

Hamas is Israel.

Case-sensitive is easier to implement; it's just a string of bytes. Case-insensitive requires a lot of code to get right, since it has to interpret symbols that make sense to humans. So, something over wondered about:

That's not hard for ASCII, but what about Unicode? Is the precomposed ç treated the same lexically and by the API as Latin capital letter c + combining cedilla? Does the OS normalize all of one form to the other? Is ß the same as SS? What about alternate glyphs, like half width or full width forms? Is it i18n-sensitive, so that, say, E and É are treated the same in French localization? Are Katakana and Hiragana characters equivalent?

I dunno, as a long-time Unix and Linux user, I haven't tried these things, but it seems odd to me to build a set of character equivalences into the filesystem code, unless you're going to do do all of them. (But then, they're idiosyncratic and may conflict between languages, like how ö is its letter in the Swedish alphabet.)

One can define mass shooters as mentally ill. It's not exactly wrong, but not useful in the slightest, since you can only make that kind of diagnosis retrospectively. So what? The victims are already dead. To the point, mental illness is useless as a prospective indicator of potential mass shooters, since the vast majority of people with mental problems do not become one.

But what if Thompson's Penis a Sword?

That's true, but our theory of physics is far more complex than those simple patterns. It actually consists of many, many interrelated theories that mutually reinforce each other. And that so many of them describe phenomena described with c as a term strongly indicates the speed of causality of pretty fundamental.

In any case, I'd be very interested to learn how it shakes out, but I probably won't be around in 300 years to do so!

Ah, but "major technological breakthroughs" != "major technological breakthroughs concerning faster-than-light travel". Certainly, there will be more of the former in the next 300 years, but our understanding of physics precludes the latter.

The quality of our understanding of physics is proved by the technological advances that we've already made with it. Yes, we're missing some major pieces, like how to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics (how to quantize gravity), but the problem that physicists face on this front is actually how stunningly well the Standard Model holds up, and has so far resisted attempts to break it. It's highly unlikely that we'll discover anything which completely upends the laws of physics as we know them.

Honestly, I feel like too many people have a cognitive bias from living in a time of unparalleled technological advancement. We've gone from, e.g. mechanical chronometers to calculate longitude on wooden vessels propelled by the wind to GPS-guided international flights in a historical blink of an eye. The pace of technological change even in living memory has been immense.

Not knowing how any of it works, it's easy to think of it akin to magic, and to extrapolate from "18th century humans -> 21st century humans" to "21st century humans -> alien technology". The catch is that this technological surge has come about because we've figured out how the physical universe works, not in spite of missing out on big chunks of potential knowledge.

All of our technology has plumbed the depths of our physical, scientific knowledge. The same physical knowledge that allows us to do wonders also shows us the limits, and provides the definitive answers as to why there's not "alien technology" out there that would seem like magic to us.

Put another way, it would be really bonkers if the scientific knowledge that has enabled us to do so many practical things, like create tiny devices like the one I'm using to tap out a message, was somehow totally wrong.

No, Ford sells the F750 as a cab-and-frame to companies that use the chassis as the platform for building utility vehicles. That image is a custom creation.

There was a Republican chode here in Wisconsin who voted twice to prove that people could vote twice. (The clerks caught his double vote, and he got prosecuted.)

I'm having an "akshually" moment here. For what it's worth, the Tragedy of the Commons refers to over-exploitation of material resources that are held in common by a community, like public grazing land in Hardin's famous essay. That can't happen in a libertarian system, because there wouldn't be any commons; all of the land would be privately-owned.

The closely-related concept that plagues libertarian systems is the Free-Rider Problem, which refers to people not paying the cost of a public good, which is defined as one that is non-excludable (can't stop people from using it), and non-rivalrous (use or benefit by one person doesn't prevent use or benefit to anybody else). A classic example of a public good is a lighthouse. Any ship can use a lighthouse, even those that don't help pay for its maintenance. The incentive is not to pay, so public goods are the things that every successful society has to re-invent taxes to pay for.