It implies that the universe is deterministic, with the caveat that what’s deterministic is the universe as a whole, which includes umpteenillion extra “timelines” which we can’t see, in addition to our own.
There’s remains indexical uncertainty, as we can’t predict which timelines we’ll see. The answer is of course all of them.
The evolution of the wave function is deterministic. However, the observables of the wave function are not deterministic. So if I tell you the state of a photon moving toward your eye, you can determine the probability distribution of what color you will see, but not the actual color, because there's randomness during collapse.
So are you saying that you're concerned by the lack of a detailed vision for Svelte, or that you're concerned with the behavior of the primary maintainer of Svelte?
My main concerns as a "technology buyer" are (from what I found online with a rapid search): lack of funding, currently only two main committers (the original author not among them), project apparently in bugfixing-only mode, and the original author online attitude.
From an outsiders perspective, that's fair enough. However, Rich's time and focus as well as a number of other maintainers is currently on Svelte-Kit, which gets a commit around every 6 minutes at its peak, and at least every hour otherwise. Rich is ridiculously active.
I've seen some of the GitHub issues that Rich is referring to in those tweets. They're almost always cases where someone is asking for some feature or change in Svelte and the core contributors disagree that it fits with the design and vision of the project.
Then the OP tags Rich in the hopes that he will swoop in and and override the decision. It's almost always more of a tantrum than a real request for help.
As far as project progress, most of the recent work has been on SvelteKit, but I've been using Svelte for about a year now and it has steadily gained features during that time. It's definitely not in bugfix-only mode.
> Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
if you would use 9mm to open your coke bottles you'd understand /s
Why are so many people concern with how others should or shouldn't express themselves? Why would anyone care if I want to wear a pink tshirt with a flower. Or use yummy in a sentence.
Sure there are people who are eccentric for sake of being eccentric. I just dont hang with them and that's as much though I will waste on that topic.
I'd happily buy pizza with SPY. Why keep money in a near zero-interest bank account when I can hold beta. If markets were 24/7 with instant settlement of securities I could hold all my money in stocks and bonds. I wouldn't be concerned with holding cash for liquidity's sake. More so I could hold more of my money in securities representing interest in real property -- housing, arable land w/ fresh water, and commodities which are usually a better store of value than cash unless there is a liquidity crunch. There are good reasons why asset prices have been soaring for the past decade.
Hello everyone! I'm a software engineer with 3+ years of experience looking to do more web development and front-end engineering professionally. I've spent the past few years working in game development and I've really fallen in love with front end engineering, UI/UX design, and designing audio/visual experiences of all kinds.
> If you are under the panopticon, you are not you any longer. You respond to please others, not yourself. You are in fact a slave.
Under this line of reasoning, any level of societal participation is tantamount to slavery. I understand the what you're angling at and I agree to some extent; however, can you provide a viable alternative?
> Anything that enforces the hierarchical system, making it ever more restrictive, has blood on their hands in my view.
Society in and of itself is a hierarchy. Anything that contributes to society is therefore something that enforces the 'hierarchical system.'
You don't have to participate in society if you wish otherwise. The world could always use more mountaintop hermits.
> Under this line of reasoning, any level of societal participation is tantamount to slavery. I understand the what you're angling at and I agree to some extent; however, can you provide a viable alternative?
I understand why you ask this. I will respond in a way that I know will be unsatisfactory to you.
The way I see it, is all the actions that we are expected to take that are in service to self (i.e. getting yours). Society is geared up to make that seem perfectly natural. In fact, you/we all need to get acquainted with morality. The first step of that is to understand the world for oneself, to take no one's word for it but instead to apply the scientific method personally. Accept that you do not 'know' much, very little is proven. What you have are beliefs masquerading as knowledge - this is to say you have negative knowledge (aka crap).
What I'm really trying to get at, is that social change is an effect of the actions of all of us in aggregate. To make the world better, one can only attempt to makes oneself better. Be the change you want to see. And that is done by following one's heart/conscience/spirit or whatever you want to term it.
> Society in and of itself is a hierarchy. Anything that contributes to society is therefore something that enforces the 'hierarchical system.'
> You don't have to participate in society if you wish otherwise. The world could always use more mountaintop hermits.
Its not as easy as you might think to not participate in society! To get away from it completely is impossible. People I have never voted for, or agree with, demand, by force if necessary, that I contribute to and support their system.
Right now, you can see the next generation system that has been in design for us. Citizen scores, UBI (carrot), access (or not) to 'social' goods eg public transport, loans (stick), free movement, limited use of energy, water, etc without the 'administrators' say so. Smart water meters, electricity, 5g is the backbone to that.
Still, I don't discount the mountaintop - but I don't think there will be peace there either!
I have to downplay part of your threats, at the risk of sounding sheelplishly naive: but access to water and electricity is already under the control of "the administrators", and has pretty much forever. Even in the case it's delivered as a "public" service, the "administrators" were somehow expecting you to pay some sort of bills.
However, although I know some people get their water and electricity shut down, that's still regarded as extreme, and law tends to make it harder and harder over time.
The Internet itself (once a luxury, less than two decades ago) is slowly becoming considered as a "necessity" that should not be shut down. [1]
I understand your point that software is increasingly making dystopia technologically possible, and that geeks should beware how they use their skill - but I wonder how surprising and underrated law and social norms can be as counter-forces.
(Also, it made me smile to see UBI in the list of "evils" that are now "fashionable" to bash on HN. ;) )
