if your definition requires universal observer agreement you already have that issue with special relativity / light cones / the spacetime metric.

many worlds posits a single universal quantum state it's just only partially accessible to observers, which is different from saying that it simply doesn't objectively exist.

maybe it depends on your definition of objective

In the 2010-2020 era, readers of Hacker News used to know how to read Haskell and had strong opinions (pro and con) of it.

That era is now over.

The problem is that this is not only about Haskell's fundamentals. It's about them being extended with backpack, an extension that very few people use.

And honestly, I don't see the point there either. I know that backpack is meant to solve some problem everybody has, but I haven't been able to fully understand what that problem is. Specifically on this article, I don't see the gain over using a type class.

There are still dozens of us!

Maybe in 2010, but you have an idealized view of 2020 HN.

peak FP debate was 2015/2016-ish

I assume it depends on the amount of detail you're expecting to get.

Generally there are some broad categories:

1) tracked vs untracked mounts

2) shooting single frames vs shooting with high FPS and processing that into a resulting image.

whoever came up with the name 'earworm' needs to be shot

Boltzmann Brains usually mean something is wrong in your cosmology

But taking this the other way around : it's also interesting that some cosmologies are known to be incorrect, because they would enable alternative forms of consciousness.

Or with our philosophy around anthropic reasoning. Or both.

Licenses communicate your intent; if you choose the most permissive one possible that is also implicitly communicated.

Actually, we're already past the peak of star formation in the universe. So the universe is well on its way winding down.. less and less stars are being created. We're seeing the universe more middle aged than especially young

https://www.reddit.com/r/space/s/0oVjIo0XMi

But how many of those stars would have been suitable for life ?

A huge star that’s going to burn out quickly isn’t conducive to complex organisms

Also in a huge star there’s less material to form planets in the first place

Where did the the values of the coupling constants between the various fields come from?

There are many parameters that do not have a reason for their value.

learning

can we just come up with one common term to to refer to all of my these between sites

"post"

"tweet"

No. Let twitter burn and be forgotten.

You mean like "Xerox"?