Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | smackeyacky's commentslogin

I don’t know whether it’s related to training yourself how to lucid dream, but once you can you may regret it as dreams stop working in the old way once you do. So be aware of that possibility before you go down that path.

I'm sensing an interesting story. Care to elaborate?

https://tim.blog/2009/09/21/how-to-lucid-dream/

I roughly followed these sorts of techniques after a period of having terrifying dreams related to stress.

It worked. I can recognise dreams and control the outcomes to a very large degree. The downside is that while that’s great for terrifying dreams it’s not so good for interesting ones. To lucid dream is to stop being able to let go completely. I’m ambivalent about it now.


That's really surprising to me, thankyou for replying

_"Pinkerton, you explain the logic and I'll provide the background."_

Sorry, what?

To me it’s an anthropomorphic reaction to things that generate heat, that rumble and roar or you mistake their weird “I am the only one who knows how to start this” quirks.

I never give a name to a car until I’ve done something substantial to it and it rewarded me with a decent trip in return. My wife’s Subaru will likely never have a name because I haven’t cut myself fixing it or replaced anything major.

The old SRT8 300C? It has a name.


I used to find it better to shortcut the AI by asking it to write python to do a task. Claude 4.6 seems to do this without prompting.

Edit: working on a lot of legacy code that needs boring refactoring, which Claude is great at.


You don’t need a jubilee. At this point Trump could release a video of himself eating a crying baby and his supporters simply will ignore it.

Perhaps nurses would be a better pool of astronaut candidates than test pilots.

I remember seeing a Russian space toilet when they had it set up in the powerhouse museum in Sydney. It looked like a booth with a vaguely pubic area shaped vacuum attachment designed to be unisex. I stared at it for some time trying to work out how it worked. The Apollo system seems horrendous!


IIRC from the book " packing for mars" the American man astronauts begged NASA to provide them with diapers at some point, which is what women astronauts got, because the earlier male-only system was a sort of sucking condom which was incredibly bad.

This really tells you how "bad masculinity" pervaded everything. I'm speaking of the designers here, not the astronauts. Why not a diaper also for male astronauts from the beginning? Isn't manly enough? Does it show weakness, like a toddler or an old dying man?

I think the designers just didn't think of it.

Women also started with a feminized version of the uncomfortable device and then switched to diapers, and then men followed.

It's possible there were no women on the design team but I don't think it's a case of bad masculinity.


I don't think that having or not having women in the design team is the key here. IMO it's more about how men perceive how men should be.

I'd take it over chasing a floating turd around and cleaning up the mess all over the walls.

Honestly replacing gravity with negative air pressure might have been the ideal solution

But I know that air is also a limited resource on space so it can't be solely an "airline-like system"

(Also discarding it "outdoors" might be the best solution in the end)


Space debris would have an additional meaning.

It’s too late. Professional sports is already ruined by gambling. You don’t always see it in the results but in the weird side bets (how many tackles, home many metres).

It should be more heavily regulated and the advertisements are so blatant and intrusive they ruin any pleasure you might take from watching sport in Australia.


Because powershell is weird and obtuse? Or because powershell works slightly different in the terminal va the powershell dev environment? Its a tool most of us use under duress rather than choice

I certainly won't argue that pwsh is even close to perfect, but...obtuse is just about the most unfitting description of powershell. It offers a level of structure and consistency that is - even with all its shortcomings - orders of magnitude above the wild west of the daily reality of the linux cli.

Just because it's the mess we are all intimately familiar with, doesn't make it less of a mess.


"Just because it's the mess we are all intimately familiar with, doesn't make it less of a mess." I kinda feel like you could apply the statement more to powershell tho.

I just dont see how Remove-Item is superior to rm and thats just the first example that came to mind (Atleast there are aliases for most stuff afaik so i guess its not AS bad).

I also just googled and there seem to be 3-4 different commands (not including the aliases) that do EXACTLY the same thing, atleast the Microsoft article used 1:1 the same description for all of them.


I'm not sure what argument you are trying to make with picking out a single command and vaguely asserting doubt.

It's about having a high degree of systematization and standardization and detailed guidelines around command structure and behaviour. The same with parameter naming and handling. About actually being able to work with typed data at input/output/pipes instead of only raw bytes, with all the benefits that entails (and a "standard library" of cmdlets/modules liberally making use of that). And so on. Having the whole .NET runtime available as a first-class citizen if needed is a nice bonus as well.

Don't mistake lack of familiarity for obtuseness.


rm only removes files and directories right? Remove-Item can be used for any powershell provider, such as environment variables, active directory, certificates, and registry. And of course you can implement your own providers that utilize *-item cmdlets. I don't know that i'd call either superior, or that i'd even say that they're equivalent. rm is a utility for removing files, remove-item is a little more than that.

"When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

Cygwin was so much work but you’re still stuck in windows.

Yuck. Just install WSL and be done with it

Underrated secondary option: git bash. Lower setup overhead than full WSL, although it is slower if you need to work on a lot of files or spawn a lot of processes.

Also, Minc, MinC is not Cygwin. And, yes slower, but it might work even under XP.

I guess you get git bash for free when you install git, which speaks legions about the pain of powershell

I’m not American. The Artemis launch feels to me like a beacon that the America the rest of us looked up to isn’t gone.

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

Search: