igiveup · HackerTrans

7개월 전discuss

22ns might be about 100 processor instructions. Somehow I doubt that any programming language can parse 50 strings in 100 instructions, let alone with naive code.

igiveup

11개월 전discuss

"Blessing of dimensionality"?

igiveup

작년discuss

Oh, the OP pretty much told me that they didn't like taking notes. I am trying to understand why, what is the mechanism? Is it like burning out? Can it happen to me and my notes when I start doing something wrong? Why is "just do less of it" not a solution? Why is "just expect less from it" not a solution? Am I an exception? If so, why?

"All you need to understand" is for insects.

igiveup

작년discuss

I don't get this. I have a megabyte or two of plain-text notes, and going through them and maintaining them and extending them is fun (apologize to the person who doesn't like threes). There are notes for a novel, ideas for future personal projects (way too many to do in my remaining lifetime), attempts at capturing my understanding of great scientific and philosophical problems, weird things I invented in my dreams, various ideas which didn't fit anywhere else. Guess what, the novel will probably never get written, projects will never get done, I will not make a philosophical breakthrough. So what?

Some ideas on how am I supposed to start hating my notes:

* They grow to 100MB, then it starts to be a burden

* I switch from notepad.exe to a dedicated application which somehow exploits my hobby of writing notes

* I develop OCD or something else

None of this seems very relatable. At this point, I might be writing a new note with these ideas, updating it when I get more ideas or when the one, most plausible explanation jumps out at me. Then I would read it years later and have something to think about before bed and have a good feeling that I didn't lose something and I am not left with thougths about the last episode of a TV show. Or is that supposed to be a bad feeling?

igiveup

작년discuss

The point is minimizing curvature, not maximizing length. Curved path makes the accelerated particles lose energy through radiation.

igiveup

작년discuss

Impossible with just the basic inductive principle of tokamaks, yes. Some years back I learned that you can keep the current going with microwaves, not sure about recent progress. You can also approximate steady state by reversing polarity of the warp - ehm - magnetic field regularly.

Yes, stellarators are different.

igiveup

작년discuss

While temperature may be in the stellar ballpark, pressure should be much lower. That is fine because we are not trying to do proton-proton fusion (that one is very slow even in a star) but a much easier deuterium-tritium fusion.

igiveup

2년 전discuss

Ability to perceive your own thoughts. Access to your own debug logs.

I think this is distinct from "ability to perceive green, which doesn't exist". A neural network trained to distinguish green in the output of a spectroscope will perceive green without ever knowing there is something like a "neural network" or "thoughts".

Also, this probably can be detected from the outside via debugging. What cannot be detected may be the thing that distinguishes a hypothetical "philosophical zombie" from a truly conscious human, but I don't think anything like a philosophical zombie exists. Once it is physically identical to the human, it will also be thinking identically.

As a next step, you may observe humans around you and realize that the thoughts you perceive seem to be running inside the head of one of these humans (which you will call "me"). However, I don't think knowing what you look like from the outside is necessary for consciousness.

igiveup

2년 전discuss

What is an optimum in a two-objective (time, space) problem?

Also, how exactly does time help to save space? Is this about some sophisticated hash functions? Handling collisions?

igiveup

3년 전discuss

Is that wrong? I don't know the logic of the game, but a 20:10 battle can very well have different odds than a 2:1 one.

igiveup

3년 전discuss

To me, it sounds more like you're saying the same thing as me: It is not a law of nature, it is text on paper, a human fiction. Yet, somehow you manage to disagree with me. How did that happen?

igiveup

3년 전discuss

Human laws do not follow laws of nature, or laws of logic. Trying to rationalize why something is or isn't owning or stealing is a misunderstanding.

"It is not missing anywhere, so it isn't stealing" does not apply. What applies is more like "This paper says it is stealing, so it is." The paper says it because a human wrote it there, as a result of whatever complexity going on in their natural neural network.

Please notice I didn't say "right", "wrong", "good", or "bad" anywhere.

igiveup

3년 전discuss

It is not just typing in multiple places, but executing a vim command in multiple places. Which means, you can replace the insides of a parenthesis with something, then proceed to do the same action on a different-length parenthesis, without actually typing the whole command again. While not getting confused by other parentheses inside the first one, because the i( adverb handles that. Similar with quoted strings, words, sentences, paragraphs, etc.

By "repeat last command", I meant repeating a single command with ., which can do simple things like pasting a string, deleting something, toggling case, incrementing an integer, and probably more stuff I don't use. Then there are macros which can repeat multiple commands, and are actually not much harder to use than the dot.

Another thing I like about the repeating approach is that you don't have to find all the places beforehand. You can target some of them with a regex, then remember to do more of them with another regex, then the rest, one-by-one by hand.

I used to think that typing in multiple places at once was cool, but now I wouldn't go back. Not even if other editors are catching up. Are they, by the way? I remember Notepad++ could not do much more than insert the same string in multiple places at once, but I confess, I have never used VS Code, Sublime, Atom, or really anything that popped up while I was in the vim rabbit hole. Am I missing out?

igiveup

3년 전discuss

> sure you can if you're comparing with Notepad++. But modern editors have multiple cursors

Notepad++ has multiple cursors. Vim has "repeat last command", which is better.

igiveup

3년 전discuss

I see. Physicists face this problem with the Large Hadron Collider, and many possible hypotheses explaining its results.

Yet, I think many many nurses are needed to beat the 342 million.

igiveup

3년 전discuss

I believe Pr[evidence | innocence] is p-value (or maybe one minus p-value, not sure). Statisticians use this routinely to test "innocence". It does not mean probability of innocence, but it means something.

igiveup

3년 전discuss

Isn't this just hypothesis testing? [1]

Zero hypothesis: N deaths happen by chance, given a known probability distribution of patient deaths.

Alternative: There was a different probability distribution in play (apparently facilitated by a specific nurse).

P-value: 1 in 342 million, really convincing.

So, is the fallacy that somebody calls the number "probability" rather than "p-value"? Or am I getting it wrong?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing

igiveup

3년 전discuss

> all the money that previously went to a lot of workers instead goes to a small number of people who own these companies, and the workers will be destitute

All the money the rich make by selling their robot products to who? Each other? Certainly not to the destitute workers, those don't have money.

I agree that there is a risk that a minority will hoard the new resources for themselves, only it's not this simple.

igiveup

3년 전discuss

Thanks, clear.

Though, I think my example was misunderstood. I meant, why is it a problem that there is no set meeting Russell's definition, but not a problem that there is no number meeting my definition. The example would violate an axiom if there was an axiom like:

  To every definition of a certain kind about natural numbers, there is a number which satisfies it.

Which of course would be rather useless, while the unrestricted comprehension axiom is necessary for the rest of the theory.

igiveup

3년 전discuss

Maybe this is in the article which I could not read, but - why is this a paradox? What I see is that Russell tried to define a set, then found out that there is no set which would fulfill his definition. "Let igiveup's number be any prime number which is divisible by four." Why is this not a paradox, while Russell's definition is?

comments