Knusper

Ah, true. Thanks.

Theoretically, it was supposed to be pseudo-code, secretly inspired by Rust, but I did get that one mixed up.

And I am actually even a fan of the word unwrap there, because it follows a schema and you can have your IDE auto-complete all the things you can do with an Option.
In many of these other languages, you just get weird collections of symbols which you basically have to memorize and which only cover rather specific uses.

I enjoy this:

return a.or(b);

But yeah, that requires an Option type rather than null pointers...

Normally, I would reply to the guy, because, you know, he's a human being, but there's so many replies, I doubt, he can actually read all of them and potentially someone else has already made that point.

Anyways, I feel like something he kind of misses here is that many of us do it from a heartfelt place. Like, we're all techies. We've all used commercial software to a point where we've grown so frustrated with it that we decided it is a waste of time.

So, it's not us saying "Why don't you go and just have more time/money?".
Rather, it's us saying "This thing is wasting your time? Here is a solution that I felt wasted less time in the long run.".

Yes, sometimes that does miss the mark, because not every complaint is looking for a solution. Or because we may be frustrated with restrictions of commercial software, which are not a problem for less techy people. Or even because we're embedded in this tech world and are hoping to make it a better place, which someone just quickly visiting may not care about.

But other times, I do just happen to know a lot about technology and a non-techy genuinely did not know about the solution I suggested and is actually really appreciative of me bringing it up. It does happen. And it's not easy to discern who would appreciate a suggestion and who won't.

Finde sowas immer total bekloppt.

Wahrscheinlich macht die Bahn AG mit der Strecke selbst keinen Gewinn. Aber dass das trotzdem eine sinnvolle Bahnstrecke ist, denke ich, würden die meisten so sehen. Hier will man als Steuerzahler*in investieren, weil am Ende viele steuernzahlende Tourismus-Betriebe dadurch erst so wirklich funktionieren.

Also eigentlich kann die Privatisierung hier gar nicht den eigentlichen Gewinn korrekt abbilden und es muss am Ende doch wieder irgendwie per staatlicher Anweisung eingetütet werden, dass die Strecke trotz vermeintlicher Verluste weiterbetrieben werden soll.

And you wouldn't have to reverse causality to travel backwards in time. You would just have to travel faster than the speed of light.

If you can travel faster than the speed of light then you can arrive at a destination before you left.

I know practically nothing about all the wormhole theories, because I just don't consider them relevant, but from a logical standpoint, the above does not feel correct to me.

The thing is, you would arrive at your destination before the light would arrive there from where you started. So, you could take out your telescope and potentially watch your own launch.

But that doesn't actually put you into the past. It just looks like it when looking into the direction you came from. Light from the other direction will look like you've fast-forwarded through time, because you now get more recent imagery.

I don't have another explanation why someone might think, this might put you into the past...

Hmm, but why do you think these things haven't occurred yet?

As far as I can tell, the speed of causality means things can have occurred in a certain location in the universe, but it takes time until the effects have permeated into the rest of the universe.

So, it's like a shockwave from an explosion. The explosion happens, but it takes a few seconds until you feel the shockwave.
Well, with the difference that you can see an explosion before the shockwave. When we're at the speed of causality, literally no evidence will have arrived in your position until it does.

So, one could go meta-philosophical with basically "If a tree falls in a forest and no one has heard it yet, did it actually already happen?", but yeah, I don't think that's terribly useful here.

And well, if we treat it like a shockwave, let's say you detonate some TNT and step through a wormhole to somewhere 20 km away. You would know that the shockwave will arrive soon, but does that matter? The shockwave will still just continue pushing on.

And I guess, crucially, it did already happen, so you can't do the usual time travel paradox of preventing that it would happen.

I certainly don't want to dismiss any individuals as tech bros. Tech broism is more like a natural phenomenon, which occurs when you lock exclusively privileged people into a room for long enough and then let them discuss user needs.
At some point, they'll ask themselves questions like "Why do we need privacy?" and everyone else in the room will agree that they've never needed it either ~~and then they'll found Google~~.

I am very much at risk of this, too. I have to constantly go out of my way to try to re-adjust my perspective, so that I don't completely miss the ball on what users actually need.

And places like Hacker News naturally form, because of course, we all do want to only talk about topics that we consider relevant. And folks whose needs are not generally considered relevant by the Hacker News community will look for different places, too.

I guess, a question you can ask yourself:
If you've ever interviewed a senior engineer who was for example black, gay, trans and/or a woman, did they frequent Hacker News?

Wow, it's been a while since I've been there, but my impression was the polar opposite. That it's filled with business folks and tech bros. That their unbalanced voting system unearths controversial takes rather than informative comments. Every now and then, you'll genuinely see a comment from someone with expertise, but that was not worth sacrificing my mental health for.

That's actually not as obvious as it might sound. The thing is, as far as we know, light seems to have no mass¹. No mass means no inertia. So, if it accelerates at all, it should immediately be at infinite speed. But for some reason, it actually doesn't go faster than what we typically call the speed of light. And we assume, that's the case, because that's actually the speed of causality.

So, it's reversed. It's not that light is just the fastest thing and as a consequence of that, nothing can be transmitted faster. No, it's actually that there appears to be a genuine universal speed limit and light would be going faster, if it could.

¹) Light is still affected by gravity, e.g. can't escape from black holes. We do assume that gravity is just a 'bend in spacetime' because of that, meaning even any massless thing are affected by it, but yeah, we're still struggling to understand what mass actually is then.

Well, I'm going to give the party-pooper response, even though science fiction and pop-science love to fantasize differently:

The past and the future are theoretical concepts. They don't actually exist in the sense that you can 'send' something to them.
Obviously, you can write data to a hard drive and then read it out after a week has passed, but presumably that is not what you had in mind.

But that's also the essence of the time travel that the theory of general relativity allows. You can travel forwards more slowly along the time axis by travelling more quickly on the space axis (close to the speed of light), which means you might just need to spend 5 perceived years to end up in the year 2200.
Similarly, you could take a hard drive onto this journey and it wouldn't have fallen apart in that time.

Travelling back in time makes no sense in general relativity. You would need to reverse causality for that, which is on an entirely different level from merely slowing causality down.

General relativity would mathematically allow for the existence of wormholes, but that's pushing the theory to extremes where it might simply not be applicable to reality anymore. We certainly have no actual evidence for wormholes.

Yeah, maybe it could look like that, but obviously they haven't actually implemented everything to make it look like that, so it's still completely up in the air, whether it actually will look like that.

Yeah, that is a valid opinion to hold. I am saying that trust is garbage.

You could consider compiling the KeePass app yourself, if you're worried about that one in particular.
A guy I used to study with, decided that he just wouldn't have a password manager on his phone.
I've certainly considered switching to a Linux phone for that, among many other reasons...