Probably depends on country, but where I’m from, you can’t use lethal force unless there’s danger to “life or health”, that is, you can’t use lethal force against a home invader unless it’s absolutely necessary.

Besides, the most lethal weapon in most peoples homes are the fire extinguisher and kitchen knives.

To be frank: You would never get away with killing a landlord that locked themselves into your apartment while you were home, unless they tried to harm you in some way. Not a burglar either for that matter.

Disclaimer: Obviously, if you confront a burglar, and it develops to a violent confrontation, lethal force can be justified. However, you will be hard pressed on whether you had the option to remove yourself from the situation before needing to resort to lethal force.

Had a landlord that I discovered had been in my apartment without letting me know. Luckily, tenants have quite good legal protections where I’m from. Among other things, we can have the lock changed by a locksmith and bill the landlord for it if they’ve done just that. So I sent them an email with the contact info for a local locksmith, along with the legal text saying I could do just that, and let them know they had burned through any goodwill with their first infraction (which I documented). They apologised and didn’t do it again.

I can get not wanting to pay for a feature you actively dislike

It’s fascinating how people, even without knowing anything about the “why”, just realised that whoever hangs around a lot in those specific areas gets sick, and then they’re able to retain that information for many generations.

One of my favourites from aboriginal oral history I that, apparently, they have a history about how they used to cross to some peninsula over dry land, but that the sea slowly came in and made the area inaccessible. Geologists have found that they’re accurately telling the story of sea level rise that happened around 50 000 years ago, and I seem to remember that they’ve found archaeological evidence that backs the story as it’s been told through generations up to this day.

That’s a great quote! I just did some searching: I’m thinking about false vacuum, and can live with the fact that if our universe does decay, it will (according to this theory) happen at the speed of light, so it will be impossible to observe before we are instantly wiped out, which is a calming thought.

Thank you for the kind response!

I was kind of considering that you might have meant the question that way (“why does nature obey whatever underlying law there is”), but as you say, it quickly takes us into philosophical territory.

If I were to give my honest opinion on that as a scientist, I would say that we can never know what the true, underlying guiding principles of the universe are, or even if there are any at all. We can only ever measure the laws of the universe indirectly through observations. This precludes us from ever being 100% certain about the true underlying principles that guide what we’re observing, or even if there are any.

As an example, there’s a hypothesis (can’t recall what it’s called) which postulates that the entire universe is in an unstable state. If that hypothesis is correct, the laws of nature as we know them could in fact change abruptly, with the change propagating at the speed of light. This change could amount to stuff like changing fundamental constants, which would pretty much break the universe as we know it.

Income should be the exponent. Lets say that the fine you pay on your n’th infraction within a 365 day period is

f = I f_0 exp( (I / I_0) (n - 1) )

where f_0 is some reasonable fraction of income for the first fine (say 0.1 %), I is your income, and I_0 is some appropriate modifier (say 100 k EUR / yr). That way, people with income I < I_0 pay an essentially flat fine until they reach very many infractions, while people with large incomes will reach massive fines very quickly.

I have to be honest: It does confuse be a bit how they’re able to get away with this. There’s this uproar now about the wealth tax (1), which I partly understand, because if your business isn’t turning a profit, and you’re forced to pay taxes based on the value of the shares, you have a problem. However, some people are apparently capable of buying houses, boats and cars, as well as living a lavish lifestyle, while still having a “zero” in their income. My guy, how are you buying food and houses without having a taxable income?

I think the wealth tax is a good place to start, but as of now it seems to me like it isn’t specific enough. We need some way to ensure that

• If you want to buy something, you need either income or a loan.
• If you want to pay your loans you need income.
• If you have income, it is taxed.

so that we can ensure that the money these people are getting from somewhere is appropriately taxed, while avoiding hurting people that own a company with millions in assets (e.g. in equipment), but aren’t cashing out anything from the company (e.g. aren’t buying expensive shit for themselves). Of course, “benefits” like getting a house, meals, or a yacht as a “gift” from your company should be taxed appropriately.

(1) For non-Norwegians: We’ve recently introduced a tax based on your current wealth, rather than income

To that I would answer that things don’t “obey the laws of physics” in any greater sense than that the “laws” of physics are principles that we’ve formulated based on how we’ve observed that nature behaves.

We have exactly zero proof that there is some inherent property of nature that always and forever will prevent heat from moving from cold to hot, even though that would violate the second law of thermodynamics. It’s just that we have never observed a process that violates the second law (people have tried very hard to break this one), and have a decent explanation for why we’re not able to break it.

If some process is developed or observed that violates the “laws of physics”, that just means we need to figure out where the “laws” are wrong, and revise them, which is how science moves forwards!

So short answer: Things obey the laws of physics, because whenever we observe something that breaks the laws, we revise the laws to allow for the newly observed behaviour.

This is what makes science fundamentally different from most belief systems: The only core principle is that anything can at any time be disproven, and everything we think we know is potentially wrong. By truly internalising that core belief, there’s no amount of proof that can turn your worldview upside down, because your core principle is that everything you think you know is potentially wrong, only being a more or less good approximation to the true underlying nature of the universe, which we can never really know anything about.

I would argue that the Higgs mechanism is just that: A mechanism for explaining where mass comes from. You could explain charge in a similar way by saying “because the particles are made of a certain amount of up or down quarks”.

Neither of these explanations answer the underlying question “but why does the Higgs mechanism give things mass?” or “but why do up/down quarks give things charge?”.

My point is that, at some stage, you get to the point of “the Higgs boson has mass because it’s an intrinsic property of the Higgs boson”, which is tantamount to “they just do”.

Unironically, magnetism is similar to charge, which is similar to mass.

You (probably) wouldn’t ask “But why does an atom weigh anything?” or “why do opposite charges attract?” All these things are just intrinsic properties of matter: they just have them.

So the answer to questions regarding why anything has mass/charge/magnetic moment really come down to “they just do.”

Now, if you want to talk about how and why magnets work at a macroscopic scale, we can have a long and interesting chat about long range ordering and phase transitions, but I’ll leave that for now :)

Looking at the general quality of YouTube videos, and the expected demographic of people that would select this option, this looks like a recipe for creating the most conspiracy-theory-oriented AI ever created.

Absolutely, throwing together some simple cmake is actually a great use-case for an LLM. Once I have something basic up and running, I can play around with it and figure out how stuff works much more easily

cmake comes to mind: I can find the docs for whatever function I want to use, but I honestly have such a hard time comprehending what they mean. It’s especially frustrating because I can tell that all the information is there, and it’s just me not being able to understand it, so I don’t want to ask others for help, cause then I’m just bothering people with a problem that I’ve in principle already found the answer to, I’m just not able to apply the answer.

Then again, I’ve heard plenty of other people complain that the cmake docs are hard to understand…

There’s a lot of good advice here already, especially that wool is the gold standard - nothing synthetic cuts it. I want to add that the absolute key is about layering, and not over-stuffing.

What keeps you warm is primarily the air trapped between your layers, which means that three thin layers can be a lot better than one thick layer. This also means that you will be freezing if your layers are too tight. If you have two thin layers, and put on a sweater, and that sweater feels tight, that likely means you’re pushing out the air trapped in your inner layers, and they won’t be as effective. The same applies when putting on a jacket.

So: You want a thin base layer (think light, thin wool shirt + long johns), then an optional medium layer or two (slightly thicker wool shirt, I have some in the range of 200 grams), and finally a thicker sweater for when you’re not moving. These should increase in size so that they can fit the thinner layers underneath, and you want your jacket big enough to fit all the underlying layers.

Finally: When you’re moving around, you will get stupidly warm and sweaty unless you take off clothes. It’s better to take off some stuff and be a bit cold for the first 10 minutes of moving than to get sweaty and be cold for the rest of the day. If (when) you do get cold, running in a circle for 10 min will fix it (run at a calm, steady pace, if you’re really cold it might take longer to get warm than you think, but you will get warm if you move).

In short: Being in a cold climate is just as much about how you use your equipment, and how you activate yourself to stay warm, as it is about what equipment you have.

I have to be honest in that, while I think duck typing should be embraced, I have a hard time seeing how people are actually able to deal with large-scale pure Python projects, just because of the dynamic typing. To me, it makes reading code so much more difficult when I can’t just look at a function and immediately see the types involved.

Because of this, I also have a small hangup with examples in some C++ libraries that use auto. Like sure, I’m happy to use auto when writing code, but when reading an example I would very much like to immediately be able to know what the return type of a function is. In general, I think the use of auto should be restricted to cases where it increases readability, and not used as a lazy way out of writing out the types, which I think is one of the benefits of C++ vs. Python in large projects.

The amount of people I’ve been helping out that have copied some code from somewhere and say “it doesn’t work”, and who are dumbfounded when I ask them to read the surrounding text aloud for me…

Along the same line: When something crashes, and all I have to do is tell people to read the error message aloud, and ask them what that means. It’s like so many people expect to be spoon-fed solutions, to the point where they don’t even stop to think about the problem if something doesn’t immediately work.

While I do agree with most of what is said here, I have a hangup on one of the points: Thinking that “docstrings and variable names” are a trustworthy way to indicate types. Python is not a statically typed language - never will be. You can have as much type hinting as you want, but you will never have a guarantee that some variable holds the type you think it does, short of checking the type at runtime. Also, code logic can change over time, and there is no guarantee that comments, docstrings and variable names will always be up to date.

By all means, having good docstrings, variable names, and type hinting is important, but none of them should be treated as some kind of silver bullet that gets you around the fact that I can access __globals__ at any time and change any variable to whatever I want if I’m so inclined.

This doesn’t have to be a bad thing though. I use both Python and C++ daily, and think that the proper way to use Python is to fully embrace duck typing. However that also means my code should be written in such a way that it will work as long as whatever input to it conforms loosely to whatever type I’m expecting to receive.

Ok, I’ve done some double checking: The Bantu expansion is approximately what I thought it was. I believe the language group I was thinking about that survived the Bantu expansion was the Khoisan.

My (very coarse) knowledge of this comes from a mixture of reading Jared Diamond (Guns, Germs and Steel) and from following it up with some Wikipedia. In short: The genetic makeup in a lot of the world is relatively dominated by the groups that were the first to adopt agriculture in their respective regions. Before the Bantu expansion, phenotypes south of Sahara were more varied, just like the phenotypes in the Americas were more varied before the corresponding “European expansion”, or the equivalent expansion that happened in South-East Asia (I don’t remember which society stood behind that one).

According to Diamond, we can trace a lot of (most?) surviving human phenotypes and languages back to relatively few societies, which after adopting agriculture, more or less wiped out / displaced neighbouring cultures due to increased resistance to a lot of infectious diseases and massively increased food production / need for land. This mostly happened less than 10 000 years ago, i.e. far too recently for natural selection to have a major impact on things like skin colour, hair type, height, facial features, etc. afterwards.

So: While major trends in phenotypes are of course a result of natural selection / evolutionary pressure in specific regions (resistance to skin cancer / sunburn vs. vitamin D production, or cooling down more efficiently with a wider nose vs. retaining heat with a slimmer one, or having an eye-shape that lets in more light vs. provides more shade), a lot of what we see today is simply a result of what phenotype the first group a given region that adopted agriculture had. This means that looking at the dominant phenotype in a region today will not necessarily give a good impression of what phenotype that is “optimally designed” to survive in the conditions of that region.

I seem to remember that the majority traits south of Sahara (black/very dark skin, and curly hair) can be traced back to something called the “great Bantu expansion”, which was essentially the result of a group of people with these traits developing agriculture and wiping out most other peoples south of Sahara, much like the Europeans did to the Americas.

Some cultures south of Sahara did survive, which can be seen both genetically, and in some languages that are completely from other languages in the area (I believe the family of languages with “clicking” sounds is an example).

I’m on my phone now, but I’ll have a double check and come back.