K0SM0S

40 ms·

271.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
I see what you mean. It seems possible the distinction is perhaps academic at best, a matter of perception. (I certainly don't have a personal opinion, yet! but point taken, and the continuity you speak of seems more realistic tbh).
272.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
> Gilbert Strang's course on OCW Thanks for the pointer! (link[1] for those interested) > you can get away with a basic understanding Great news to me! > taking the time to understand the math is absolutely worthwhile in my
273.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
Major interest spike: nerd-trigger, category " hard problems whose solution exceeds what I have to work with". Will investigate. Thanks a lot!
274.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
> I think this is correct, if you consider college level linear algebra and an intuition for applying it to novel problems to be non-trivial knowledge Yes, in the context of "a self-taught researcher", I think I intuitively mea
275.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
> matrix calculus It might be wrong but I tend to see vectors and matrices as two notations for the same mathematical object[1]. So I indeed meant matrices! However I didn't see calculus itself as such a big requirement, as it all f
276.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
Indeed, but what's the magnitude? The question is, how much information is encoded in those algos (to me, low-order logical truths about a few elementary variables, low degree of freedom for the system overall), compared to how much in
277.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
This was a great read (and great nuggets, like that paper on Intelligence by Chollet). I wonder: — Is math a problem for non-academic researchers? Most papers strike me as requiring a non-trivial knowledge of linear algebra, for instance; a
278.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
It indeed strikes me as particularly domain-narrow when I hear neuro or ML scientists claim as self-evident that "humans can learn new stuff with just a few examples!.." when the hardware upon which said learning takes place has b
279.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
So if I understand correctly, to reformulate in my own words/views: while the "big data" (datasets) formed and thus owned by big-tech, big-ads, big-brother, etc. may be instrumental to build at-scale solutions for real-world
280.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
Might just be their way of being funny, I wouldn't read too much into it. Self-deprecation is a common social cue to trigger some light, mundane empathy: "I struggle, you struggle, (thus) we relate!" I blame it on the spiri
281.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
Not exactly unknown but rarely mentioned these days: Psycho-Cybernetics, A New Way to Get More Living Out of Life (1960) by Dr Maxwell Maltz, MD. A foundational work in the field of self-image and more generally self-growth. Sort of the m
282.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
I usually indent quotes with ">" (markdown-style), add italics for clarity at a glance, and maybe fancy double-quotes when it feels right. > “I wish HN had some other way of stylizing quotes.” Me too, also simple ordered l
283.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
Aha, TFA, right :p Yeah, the faster-than-light topic is actually a very, very tricky one, even for seasoned astro-peeps it seems. I didn't mention PBS Spacetime[1] but it's probably the best place to start for best-in-class high l
284.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
As I see it, it's a case of - ridiculous before the fact - dangerous as disruption becomes real - obvious in hindsight I.e. a "paradigm shift". These things take time, from inception to maturity for adoption, regardless
285.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
Initially in this decade I fully subscribed to your view, on paper. Then I observed how things panned out and thought some more. Here's a grim reality: at ~3 million per death in a car crash (that was a reasonable estimate of insurance
286.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
It's actually debatable that you ever need level 5, because once you reach level 4 it's probably only a matter of time until most road infrastructure is converted for L4 self-driving vehicules (once you can statistically prove a
287.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
Hey there. I'm not sure you'll ever read this, but for the record. THANK YOU, so much. So.. I've been dabbling with GA since we talked and it is an incredible framework!! I now understand your post loud and clear. It's
288.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
Not my field, and I'll admit a confirmation bias (this idea fits my subjective view of nerds/geeks) so I remembered the idea and didn't fact proof it much back then. I can't find anything on a quick Google. I'll giv
289.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
I'm no physicist either. Maybe I wish I were, though. And no, your ideas here are everything but simple-minded, imho. On the contrary, being a non-expert lets you play with things with much more freedom than otherwise (like sci-fi auth
290.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
> That's what I meant by "foam". Oh sorry I didn't catch that (not a native speaker). When thinking of "foam" I see a uniform, homogenous noisy structure and I was pretty sure this was the name given to our
291.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
Immensely interesting food for thought. Thanks!
292.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
In these pictures[1], each individual 'dot' is a whole galaxy's worth of dark matter (and here[2] are said galaxies). So you may view galaxies as "neurotransmitters" of the universe, maybe. Or hormones. The big lumi
293.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
> I think the ideas of emergent behaviours are a saving grace for the incessant desire of ours to reduce everything to its atomic (in the sense of an atomic operation, not an atom) components. Very well said! Humans think a lot in terms
294.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
Oh that's not new and expected that they would read your data, like gmail scans your mails, cloud drives scan your non-encrypted files, etc. While I'm at it, let's spread the good word. I use Signal personally, it's real
295.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
We used to think so, yes. But our telescopes have improved a lot since then, and we're now able to see with much more detail, our 3D positioning is better too. We've recently observed that the universe, at the largest scales of
296.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
Iirc, LIGO confirmed that there was no leakage from/to other dimensions, hence that we can safely reason (at least on this problem) within our current 4D manifold. It doesn't (cannot, really) state about the possibility that our u
297.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
Actually just to nitpick, even if we could find one string theory that works, remember that it's "only" math. Meaning that it could totally work to describe a phenomenon without having any physical reality to it. Even if it p
298.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
It's also been shown empirically that 'nerds', 'geeks' tend to be ad-resistant (not just tech-nerds, the general psych profile regardless of domain). It's not that ads are that irrelevant to nerds compared to m
299.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
There is a lot of truth in your approach, imho. By truth I mean these things that we allow ourselves to accept even if we don't understand it fully, and "let the data speak" — experience will be the judge. I've researche
300.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
I really appreciate Taleb's ideas in general, but this one strikes me as emotionally-driven, vastly more "intuitive" than substantiated. It's a like a world chess master or NBA player telling others "play better!&q

More ›