For the best experience on desktop, install the Chrome extension to track your reading on news.ycombinator.com
Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | history | more memling's commentsregister

> I have done pretty well with a combo of Nokia dumbphone for calls and texts, and a separate smartphone with no SIM as needed. I leave my smartphone at work or in the car when I want a break.

This is my route, too. I use a Sonim XP3 for my day-to-day communications: calling and text. I have an old Xperia flashed with SailfishOS when I want a pocket computer for calendaring (I use the calendar to record memories of my kids), light web browsing, and the occasional note.


I've bought several of these phones. My texting habits are relatively minimal, but I'm apparently pretty hard on T9-capable keyboards.

I bought a Sonim XP3 recently that is chunky, terrible for web browsing, and ideal for texting. One of its predecessors was featured on "Will it Blend?"[1] and only mostly blended (try that with an iPhone).

I've not destroyed anything on this phone, whereas the keyboards on my two Nokias died in less than a month.

[1]: https://piped.mha.fi/watch?v=Wt1fNKhQdKk


If you are a long term investor, dividend growth rate is an important metric when evaluating the aristocrats. At a 7.2% growth rate, your absolute payout will double in ten years regardless of the stock value appreciation. That may or may not be a good stategy for many inestors, but may be smarter than chasing yield.


Dividends are taxed twice: once as profit to the company issuing the dividend and once when the recipient receives it.


Isn't this the normal cycle of money? Continuing the example, the recipient spends some of this dividend money at Starbucks and pays sales tax. Then Starbucks pays income tax on the money and the cycle repeats.


Yes, money keeps being taxed but the number of tax events changes depending on the path the money travels. It can have more or fewer taxable events.


> Can anyone explain this?

Slave names were sometimes numbers. Naming conventions in Roman culture were apparently also fairly formal.[0] I would guess there's sufficient evidence here that a ratio of free to slave could be estimated.

In general, it seems like being a slave was not a great experience.[1]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome#Treatm...

[1]: among other stories, the one concerning the murder of Lucius Pedanius Secundus sticks in my mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Pedanius_Secundus


> it seems like being a slave was not a great experience

It was definitely frowned upon.


> Slave names were sometimes numbers.

Senators' and emperors' names were quite often numbers.

That is definitely not the distinction you're looking for.


"Janus the fifth" and "KD6-3.7"


That's not at all how it worked.

"The fifth slave I bought" and "the fifth son of this super rich senator" would have exactly the same name, Quintus.


Cicero’s less famous brother was named Quintus.

Pompey Magnus had a son, Sextus (6th), that was relatively famous for his opposition to Octavius.


Not sure precisely why you're being downvoted for bringing some additional light to the conversation. Been busy here but appreciate the insights; this isn't my field. Are there good sources that clarify the complexities of Roman naming conventions?


> "Janus the fifth"

You're thinking along the lines of generational suffixes? There were Roman emperors who's family name (nomen gentilicium) was a number, the same number being used by son, father, grandfather... not incrementing with each generation.

There were also Roman emperors who's fathers had been slaves.

Lucius Septimius Severus - family name means 7th

Publius Helvius Pertinax - family name means honey-yellow. Son of a freed slave.


In image processing an edge detector like Sobel works (IIRC) by forward differencing. This is not quite differentiation but may help connect the dots a little bit. My guess is that some people may find this more intuitive.


> But from a working-with-other people perspective, imagine opening some code and finding random invented constructs you have to reverse engineer and step through

This feels just like working with another API to me. Macros can be arbitrarily complicated I suppose, but is the typical usage any more complex than learning an API? I don't really know, I guess, but my experience hasn't shown this to be that challenging.

I can appreciate that programming languages are ultimately codifying a particular way to think about computation, and macros express more idiosyncratic ways of thinkingabout comouting that may not be readily understandable.

I do think Racket has issues, but this isn't the first one I would cite.


I read _Stella Maris_ just after reading a bio of Gödel and history of the Vienna Circle. Serendipitous to come across it, and would recommend it.

_The Road_...I was warned, but not prepared.


I read The Road a couple of months after my first kid was born. I don't think I ever really mentally recovered.


I listened to The Road on audiobook while falling asleep, over a week or so. Amazing book, but not a recommended setting! Don't think I've recovered yet either.


> If anyone here has novel ideas how to actually implement "a class that can't be cheated with AI", specifically university CS classes, I am all ears.

May not work for you, but as a CS student our department had the policy if that if you failed the final, you failed the course. The finals were usually structured that rote memorization would earn a C- (depending on course complexity and importance). They were all pencil-and-paper exams.

While cheating was policed, collab was encouraged with the proviso that lab submissions needed to be own-work, and they'd run basic comparisons to make sure that they weren't copies. As a result, the administrivia on finals was longer...but there was a little less concern about the rates of cheating.


Can you point to something specific or was it more an overall sort of rejection of the contents? An old or new testament thing?


LOL, Genesis had enough bullshit in it that I was questioning things immediately. Somewhere in there it says that the stars were created after earth. And then there's Noah and the flood with the completely impossible repopulating the earth with a single family and a single pair of each animal. Exactly how did 2 buffalo's get to the middle east? Of course, the answer would be that god magicked them there - but then I thought - where's the magic now? Why hasn't anyone recorded actual evidence of a miracle?


FWIW, the modern Catholic church's official stance is that Genesis should not be taken literally, and Catholics make up about half of the world's Christians. I think biblical literalism is mostly an American Evangelical thing.


> FWIW, the modern Catholic church's official stance is that Genesis should not be taken literally

The non-literal interpretation of the Bible is not modern: (Saint) Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) wrote about not taking it literally.

* https://spectrummagazine.org/article/news/2010/01/30/augusti...

* https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/243740


Even better, well, take everything literally except for the parts that are provably wrong. If one part is not true, then any or all parts may not be true. And since there's almost no evidence for anything miraculous in the Bible then AFAIK it's all untrue until proven otherwise. I should mention I was a deacon when I was in my 20s, so it's not like I was raised atheist.


It's not about scientific truth. I would avoid the word truth altogether in the context of religion. You are so out in left field that you are playing a whole different game. That is your interpretation is "not even wrong" due to your pressupposing that the style and purpose of the mode of communication is one of precision and truth.

Evangelicals tend to see things in a similarly anachronistic (seeing traditional communication through a modern lens) way and it seems to have become near-ubiqitous. The mistake is only recently becoming understood. Ultimately it was a necessary mistake to make.


> I should mention I was a deacon when I was in my 20s, so it's not like I was raised atheist.

Interesting, thanks for the explanation. Were you a deacon before you started reading Genesis more skeptically or how did that happen for you? Feel free not to respond, of course. I'm interested in stories of de/conversion; I don't mean to probe where you'd rather not say.


Yeah, when I became a deacon I started reading the bible way more, with the thought that I could provide helpful/supportive quotes to people like some others can. I really don't understand how anyone can read it and not become skeptical.


Literalism is actually emerged as a significant thing in the 18th Century; its not specifically American or Fundamentalist/Evangelical, but it is definitely a fairly recent Protestant thing that is most prominent in the Fundamentalist/Evangelical space.


FYI the church fathers explicitly say it should be taken literally. I don't know what's "modern church" does the faith change according to developments of science? Then it has never been true. Saying that as a christian.


> does the faith change according to developments of science?

What's the alternative? When science and faith disagree you have to either adapt your faith or reject science, and going against science tends to be a battle against truth in the long term. Science isn't always right but its long-term results can hardly be argued against.


Most experiments in science rely on correlation in controlled environment. To prove something entirely true you'd have to control all variables in the universe. As for theoretical science well a lot of it is just a choice of faith. Just listened to Wolfram in his first interview with Lex Fridman, like he said some things about evolution we'll never be able to prove. He also said evolution is kind of a religion itself which I'd agree with. If you can 100% invalidate some religion why should it change? What's the purpose for it to exist - to satisfy some spiritual need like any other material need? The pupose of church was to hold the truth in it's absolute form. If that's not the case you're merely a support group, a social club/community.


Who are "the church fathers"?


Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search:

HN For You