Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | analog8374's commentslogin

does anybody do built-in trackballs anymore? I really like those.

Yes, the MNT Reform and Pocket Reform both have trackballs[1]. They're very different products from the StarFighter laptop though, in that they sacrifice a lot of potential processing power in exchange for a platform which is much more amenable to customization.

[1]: https://shop.mntre.com/


Ive always wished for a UHK-style trackball in a laptop: https://uhk.io/product/trackball

Do you know what kind of bearings that has?

I must also mention that I'm happy to see the UHK has a ball-retention ring; this used to be normal for trackballs but companies moved away for it for some reason.



The MNT Reform has a trackball option.

https://shop.mntre.com/products/mnt-reform


you mean like the thinkpad trackpoint?

I assume they mean an actual roller ball (like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compaq_Contura )

It is still a crazy question though because if you seen most laptops in the last 15 years there is basically no room for them except on the large workstation thinkpads or large gaming laptops.


Not the OP, but some older laptop designs had a small trackball where modern machines have a touchpad, e.g. the early PowerBooks[1]

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerBook_180


Hard-working children. Uncultivated. No taste. Masters within their professional shoebox but otherwise brutally shallow. And the higher the skill level the worse it is. I see it every day.

He's suggesting that there are several flavors of blindness going around so if we're going to point fingers then we might start with ourselves.

...which is a blatant false equivalence, to be clear.

I think it's a pretty good equivalence, actually. And pretty good advice. Passionate certainty should raise a red flag.

i find that passionate certainty can be a good thing in some cases, especially when someone really does know what they are talking about.

but fanaticism is more often a problem than not. fanatics tend to not really understand what they're talking about, or twist it to fit what they want it to be about.

> Fanaticism: Excessive enthusiasm, unreasoning zeal, or wild and extravagant notions, on any subject, especially religion, politics or ideology; religious frenzy.

note -- not talking about any particular "thing" here. just commenting about passion vs. fanaticism in general.


I see a similar idea that often gets people talking past each other re: patriotism vs. nationalism

for me, and this is just me, if you have to shout about it then you’re possibly not doing patriotism.

The equivalence between supporting the rights of oppressed minorities, and inciting violence towards foreigners, is a good one?

A red flag that is blowing into your face? :P

Matthew 7:3–5

I am not religious, but this quote keeps coming up... And people keep forgetting about it.


Keep going. Look at Matthew 7:6. "Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you."

That is (in this context), don't bother trying to give truth (or even have a reasonable conversation) with those who simply will not listen. Zealots, shill, propagandists... it's like talking to a brick wall. If anyone has a technique for getting them to stop being a brick wall and start actually engaging with what you're saying, I'd like to know what it is.

You can call it "transmit only mode" (hat tip Patrick McClure). When you realize that the person you're talking to is in transmit only mode, you understand how the conversation is going to go if you continue it.


Yeah I was sorta thinking in that direction too.

First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye


Forgive me if I'm mischaracterising you but you seem to be not only reinforcing the false equivalence but in fact doubling down on it? That trans rights protesters are not only morally equivalent to nationalist protesters, but in fact, in some way more of a problem? A plank in the eye vs a mote of dust?

When I say 'false equivalence' in this context I don't mean 'nationalist protesters are all bad and trans rights protesters are all good'. Of course there are bad actors in the trans rights camp, people who are blinded by their own flag; likewise I'm sure there are well-intentioned and peaceful nationalists who are simply misinformed. I submit to you however that the number of, and danger presented by bad actors in the former camp is severely limited compared to the bad actors in the camp of people who hate foreigners and wish to see them expelled and/or commit violence against them. Even without comparing actual events, that would seem to be self-evident given the trans rights cause itself is centered around support and love for a group of people, and once you do compare actual events the difference is obvious. I've been in the presence of a nationalist rally once, and even as a cis white guy it was a scary thing. I would have absolutely no qualms whatsoever showing up to a trans rights march.

Do you really think the two are basically morally equivalent? That someone could not reasonably criticise rising and widespread nationalist hatred if they don't also, with the same vigour, also call out a handful of zealots aggressively pushing for acceptance and fair treatment?

As I said I totally accept I may have misunderstood you and/or the other commenters here, so please enlighten me if so.


> given the trans rights cause itself is centered around support and love for a group of people

If only that were true. As a political project, it's mostly focused on abolishing the boundaries around single-sex spaces, and certainly in terms of rhetoric, mostly those boundaries used to safeguard women and girls.

Just look at the frequent threats of violence and death threats that women who speak out against this, such as JK Rowling, receive from trans ideological activists. This is not a movement of love and support.

> I've been in the presence of a nationalist rally once, and even as a cis white guy it was a scary thing. I would have absolutely no qualms whatsoever showing up to a trans rights march.

That's because you are male and you're not in disagreement with them. If you were female with "terf" views you would almost certainly feel differently. There are some dangerous, violent men who attend these marches, as is the case with the nationalist ones.


> If only that were true. As a political project...

Equal rights for trans folks is a political project, eh? Who's the project manager? :)

> Just look at the frequent threats of violence and death threats that women who speak out against [equal rights for trans folks]

What reaction did you expect to someone advocating against equal rights? To someone advocating for unequal rights for people who are different? To someone fanning the flames of the frequent threats of violence and death threats received by the women who speak out for equal rights for trans folks?

You're familiar with Popper's Paradox of Tolerance? It would be counterproductive to expect folks to tolerate any and all intolerance, and it would be cruel gaslighting to expect the victims of abuse to be tolerant towards their persecutors.


In this we are referring to the method of holding, not the thing held.

Replace foreigners with cis-men, and the situation stays the same. Radicalized people are the problem. Nationalist or trans, I dont care.

This means that LLM human resource departments will only hire LLMs. Which is kind of beautiful.

If it's a choice between stealing a bike and homelessness, I'll steal a bike. So the problem is the threat of homelessness. Right?

> If it's a choice between stealing a bike and homelessness

This is a vanishingly-rare hypothetical in America. (Stealing food? Sure. A bike? No.)


But still a hypothetical, unlike rampant desperation and wealth inequality in America.

Let's not be tribal. Even the incels have something valuable to contribute to the conversation.

"Let's not be tribal. Even Goebbels has something valuable to contribute to the conversation."

That's how naive you sound. Give me a break.


Godwin has entered the chat with great swiftness.

How, and why, are we supposed to have a conversation about fascist propaganda without mentioning Nazis?

Everyone has the freedom of speech, just like everyone else has the freedom to ignore anything they have to say.

Hey I use this. Works great. Ez.

we used to not have a word for orange. we called it yellow red. then this new fruit arrived from India

Some of us "stare" at our breath instead. That is, you put your attention upon the feeling of breath in the tip of your nose (or something like that).

It's nice because your eyes don't need to be open for it, so they don't get all dried out and itchy.


Shikantaza here. It's a big deal.

Consider:

We all know about "paying attention". Pay attention in class. Pay attention to the movie you're watching. Pay attention to where you're walking. Etc. It's important and we do it all the time.

Take that to the next level. Pay attention to a thing for a while. AKA Concentration. That's important too. Deep thinking, careful doing, science, engineering, art. It's necessary for all that.

And then there's meditation. It's more stuff to do with your attention.

Samatha (AKA concentration meditation) is concentration taken to the next level. All that deeper thinking etc that you got from concentration, this takes it further. Possibly much further. There are weird depths. And also, you become very familiar with the ways of attention. How it moves and how it affects the rest of your world and what you can do with it.

And then there is Shikantaza (AKA formless meditation, meditation without a seed...). it's a hard left turn. Serious sci-fi. I'll leave it at that.


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

Search: