3 ms·

>it helps to have the relevant individual buy in How about having a single post buy-in ? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41891694 https://news.ycombinator

>it helps to have the relevant individual buy in How about having a single post buy-in ? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41891694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41891694 It may be that im being hypernormal and you’re being weird here* It may be that while the half-domesticated subspecies died out, the tech that was in-bundled survived? (Or even the morphology.. cf Kiso breed, which i suspect was also rode like donkeys?) https://archive.is/B7FBn https://archive.is/B7FBn (Seems either E2L effects or the authors were trying hard to claim but not claim that they found Przewalski (note, merely nominative, not philosophical :) genetic material) *hmm, re:31-60 upvote:comment ratio hasnt burnt into my HN reflexes yet. Watching how submission time and day plays with that.. the post may draw out the partisans, but also, later into the depths of night, the loquacious but neurotic Old Guard.. Edit: u2c ratio seems to have a downweighting threshold of around 1.25 so far, not factoring in the rise speed or moderator intervention yet Edit2: MITI- cocytarchy not enough (or phronetocracy, for that matter) Edit3: top comment is already softflagging TFA as “nonsequitur/histrionic” Edit4: if the lion is an article and not a person, then nothing prevents the discourse from degenerating into a brown noise canid fight, especially if the initial article hasnt been properly formalized into code

082349872349872 2y ago
Using the terminology from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_assignment_matrix https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_assignment_ma... : Are you saying it's better to have an Accountable person than an Accountable group, while I was attempting to say if a group is Responsible then they'll probably be more effective if they all each believe they're accountable? Then there are the situations where an Accountable person has no power over the Responsible group, leading them to implicitly (most often) or explicitly say זבשך: "that is your problem"...
- gradschoolfail 2y ago
  Nice way of depicting the dilemma (or trilemma). I dont see any straightforward way to resolve it rn.. maybe more thinking about which should work better in what situations.. it does seem to depend on timescales. (There was a comment in the MITI thread about the culture of secrecy, that rings true, note that their final act was to os Prolog.. trust is situational) (But also laughable security in the academic side, feels like Jacobs is haunting them, MITI failed to bridge the dichotomy.. nothing like a smooth uni to industry prefabd pipeline for them)
  - 082349872349872 2y ago
    might be something to your viscosity conceit — orgs as non-newtonian fluids? as to situations: when training mammals, sometimes "shaping" works better: introducing novelty little by little ("salami slicing"); sometimes "flooding" works better: presenting a novel situation all at once ("ripping off the band-aid"). unf I don't have any* theory for it; it's more gut feel, and I've noticed my wife succeeds with flooding in situations where I am certain I'd have to proceed by shaping to have any hope. * any beyond "shaping is safer but slower", that is
    - 082349872349872 2y ago
      oops; forgot to make the connection explicit. Shaping would be low pressure over a long time, and flooding high pressure over a short time, so they could be alternative ways to factor any given amount of Pascal-seconds.
      - gradschoolfail 2y ago
        Can you make your (proposed?) patch (to DS, presumably?) even more explicit?* [ok, y is “seconds” peeking out from the other “si unit”] To me, it makes more sense to say (<- what you said) string (representing expression) to expression ( <- destructure value to env) expression to (shorter) string ( <- eval expression ) (Trying not to make “string”/“word”/“expression” interchangeable) *i sometimes cannot ask my friends questions (similarly, but also different, to this) as it would be too embarrassing XOR explicit => better (even more symmetric?) sibboleth?
        082349872349872 2y ago
        that could make sense, yes. I think one way to keep them from being interchangeable is to say that a (linear) string is composed associatively: A,(B,C) == A,B,C == (A,B),C while an (arboreal) expression is not: A,[B,C] <> [A,B],C one syntax I've played around with is due to physics envy: ⟨expression∣intermediate bindings∣pattern⟩ eg fib := ⟨n*fib(n-1)∣n>1⟩ + ⟨1|n<=1⟩ gcd := ⟨gcd(x,y-x)∣x,y>x⟩ + ⟨gcd(x-y,y)∣x,y<x⟩ + ⟨x∣x,y==x⟩ ftoc := ⟨c∣ c:=t*5/9; t:=f-32 ∣f⟩ NB. °F to C note that (for codegen purposes) we can simplify expressions and (with failure provision) patterns by expanding them into the intermediate section, similar to ANF; if we were going all the way down to assembly we might want to lower through ftoc' := ⟨c∣ c:=t*m; t:=f-a; m:=0.56; a:=32.0 ∣f⟩ but on the other had could have raised to ftoc'' := ⟨(f-32)*5/9 ∣ f⟩ and, on the gripping hand, if we wished to be austere, maybe it could be worth it to even insist that in the expression place, computations be injections, in the intermediate isos (changes of representation), and in the pattern surjections? (note also that here for simplicity I've deliberately used non-overlapping patterns; there's a nice pattern-calculus that allows for both simpler programs and simpler interpreters if one allows algebraic combination with overlapping patterns. However, I've probably made my language unadoptable because no matter what the syntax, combination of patterns is always deliberately unordered — ordering can be achieved if the user insists, but as a 2nd class construct) finally, everything is given here in the identity monad for simplicity, but the same ideas carry over unchanged to other monads.

082349872349872 2y ago

Using the terminology from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_assignment_matrix https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_assignment_ma... : Are you saying it's better to have an Accountable person than an Accountable group, while I was attempting to say if a group is Responsible then they'll probably be more effective if they all each believe they're accountable? Then there are the situations where an Accountable person has no power over the Responsible group, leading them to implicitly (most often) or explicitly say זבשך: "that is your problem"...

gradschoolfail 2y ago
Nice way of depicting the dilemma (or trilemma). I dont see any straightforward way to resolve it rn.. maybe more thinking about which should work better in what situations.. it does seem to depend on timescales. (There was a comment in the MITI thread about the culture of secrecy, that rings true, note that their final act was to os Prolog.. trust is situational) (But also laughable security in the academic side, feels like Jacobs is haunting them, MITI failed to bridge the dichotomy.. nothing like a smooth uni to industry prefabd pipeline for them)
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  might be something to your viscosity conceit — orgs as non-newtonian fluids? as to situations: when training mammals, sometimes "shaping" works better: introducing novelty little by little ("salami slicing"); sometimes "flooding" works better: presenting a novel situation all at once ("ripping off the band-aid"). unf I don't have any* theory for it; it's more gut feel, and I've noticed my wife succeeds with flooding in situations where I am certain I'd have to proceed by shaping to have any hope. * any beyond "shaping is safer but slower", that is
  - 082349872349872 2y ago
    oops; forgot to make the connection explicit. Shaping would be low pressure over a long time, and flooding high pressure over a short time, so they could be alternative ways to factor any given amount of Pascal-seconds.
    - gradschoolfail 2y ago
      Can you make your (proposed?) patch (to DS, presumably?) even more explicit?* [ok, y is “seconds” peeking out from the other “si unit”] To me, it makes more sense to say (<- what you said) string (representing expression) to expression ( <- destructure value to env) expression to (shorter) string ( <- eval expression ) (Trying not to make “string”/“word”/“expression” interchangeable) *i sometimes cannot ask my friends questions (similarly, but also different, to this) as it would be too embarrassing XOR explicit => better (even more symmetric?) sibboleth?
      - 082349872349872 2y ago
        that could make sense, yes. I think one way to keep them from being interchangeable is to say that a (linear) string is composed associatively: A,(B,C) == A,B,C == (A,B),C while an (arboreal) expression is not: A,[B,C] <> [A,B],C one syntax I've played around with is due to physics envy: ⟨expression∣intermediate bindings∣pattern⟩ eg fib := ⟨n*fib(n-1)∣n>1⟩ + ⟨1|n<=1⟩ gcd := ⟨gcd(x,y-x)∣x,y>x⟩ + ⟨gcd(x-y,y)∣x,y<x⟩ + ⟨x∣x,y==x⟩ ftoc := ⟨c∣ c:=t*5/9; t:=f-32 ∣f⟩ NB. °F to C note that (for codegen purposes) we can simplify expressions and (with failure provision) patterns by expanding them into the intermediate section, similar to ANF; if we were going all the way down to assembly we might want to lower through ftoc' := ⟨c∣ c:=t*m; t:=f-a; m:=0.56; a:=32.0 ∣f⟩ but on the other had could have raised to ftoc'' := ⟨(f-32)*5/9 ∣ f⟩ and, on the gripping hand, if we wished to be austere, maybe it could be worth it to even insist that in the expression place, computations be injections, in the intermediate isos (changes of representation), and in the pattern surjections? (note also that here for simplicity I've deliberately used non-overlapping patterns; there's a nice pattern-calculus that allows for both simpler programs and simpler interpreters if one allows algebraic combination with overlapping patterns. However, I've probably made my language unadoptable because no matter what the syntax, combination of patterns is always deliberately unordered — ordering can be achieved if the user insists, but as a 2nd class construct) finally, everything is given here in the identity monad for simplicity, but the same ideas carry over unchanged to other monads.