observer4's comments

observer4 | 3 years ago | on: The golden age of streaming TV is over

Interesting.

observer4 | 3 years ago | on: “A damn stupid thing to do” – The origins of CPL, BCPL, and C (2020)

LOL. That's right. Well observed. Just the "origins of C" would be a lot more honest. I also liked the commentary on theory and practice, which could have something to do with C and UNIX and the whole story.

observer4 | 3 years ago | on: Reinventing How We Use Computers

Thanks to whoever posted this. Thanks to the writer. It's a relief to find intelligence out there.

observer4 | 3 years ago | on: Our new love affair with the office is a step towards better philosophy of work

"Love affair." It's clearly a joke. The blogger is a joker.

observer4 | 3 years ago | on: Intuitionism and the Excluded Middle (2019)

Loved the simplicity of the writing.

observer4 | 3 years ago | on: Emacs as PID 1: Standing Emacs Alone on a Linux Kernel

That's a very cool experiment. Congratulations for the initiative.

observer4 | 3 years ago | on: DevOps de los Muertos(Death of DevOps)

I would have preferred a more explicit writing style.

observer4 | 3 years ago | on: The Honesty of Pornography

The article seems to oppose a mainstream view of pornography. Such mainstream opposition, properly done, as is the case in the article, is refreshing. I seem to learn more by reading nonmainstream views like that and somehow this very statement seems obvious.

observer4 | 3 years ago | on: Do the Police Solve Crime?

Cool info. Thanks for the references.

observer4 | 3 years ago | on: Write Simply (2021)

I think that's about taste. It so happens that I find simple writing more elegant as well. It feels to me that if I can't do it simply it means I don't master the subject enough --- indeed that's a theorem taking literally the "I" in the conditional. I've noticed that the people I consider bad writers sometimes criticize my writing for precisely that --- too simple. But I actually think that they enjoyed what they read; in other words, they did not convince me. (Also, because I consider them bad writers or non-writers, it's hard to take seriously what they have to say.)

It was cool to read that Paul Graham edits a lot over the days. I do the same. I reserve enough days to put the text off so I can forget it. My observation is that if I still remember the text, when my eyes see the paragraphs, they don't quite read them --- they remember what's there, recovering an illusory version of the paragraphs. When I'm able to forget them, I see them again for what's really there, and then I notice the problems.

observer4 | 5 years ago | on: Ask HN: What are some good resources to learn how electricity works?

Nobody seems to have mentioned a book that appeared here 19 days ago.

[Letters of a Radio-Engineer to His Son (1922)]((https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23358380)). It explains electricity without any technical jargon. Pretty nice first read. His atomic model is outdated, but that doesn't seem to interfere with anything. After reading the first initial letters, you might have a greater motivation to dive into more complicated texts.