Reelin

51 ms·

481.
by Reelin 6y ago
If it really reduced the required time six fold, the obvious safety-productivity win-win would be to independently (ie different workers) enter everything twice. You would enjoy a three fold improvement in time requirements, should nearly e
482.
by Reelin 6y ago
> transfer it to a online poker site for example (directly, without raising possible issues) If we think of Bitcoin as an electronic cash equivalent, isn't this a bit like worrying that you can't get away with making a withdraw
483.
by Reelin 6y ago
Even with connection strengths I still don't think we would really have the full connectome. Such a model would completely miss many of the phenomena related to chemical synapses, which involve signal transduction pathways, which are _
484.
by Reelin 6y ago
Yes, you have to debug your code. I suspect that the people who implemented OpenWorm are capable of and have done that.
485.
by Reelin 6y ago
No? It honestly seems like you're being intentionally obtuse. The simulation being correctly implemented is an underlying assumption; in the face of failure the implementer is stuck determining the most likely cause. Take for example c
486.
by Reelin 6y ago
I explicitly called out the case where issues arise solely due to lack of compute in my original comment. I never claimed that a simulation is required for proof, just that an unexpectedly broken (but correctly implemented) simulation demon
487.
by Reelin 6y ago
Not necessarily. A working simulation (for some testable subset of states) doesn't carry any hard and fast logical implications about your understanding. On the other hand, assuming no errors in implementation then a broken simulation
488.
by Reelin 6y ago
If you think you understand something, write a simulation which you expect to work based on that understanding, and it doesn't work - did you really understand it?
489.
by Reelin 6y ago
The trouble is that (assuming sufficient computational power) if we can't simulate it then we don't really understand it. It's one thing to say "that's computationally intractable", but entirely another to say
490.
by Reelin 6y ago
I agree that the situation you describe seems like an overreach, but the US likes to throw its weight around. For that matter so does the EU (ex GDPR), China, and really any other country. My impression is that most countries will happily i
491.
by Reelin 6y ago
I'm not understanding what about this is patentable? Greenhouse as a geodesic dome surely isn't (and isn't a particularly important design detail anyway). The trellises just look like standard hydroponics to me - is there som
492.
by Reelin 6y ago
> Not having undefined behavior does make life easier I have mixed feelings about this. It seems like many examples of undefined behavior are things that don't make sense to do (ie ought to result in an error) which would often be u
493.
by Reelin 6y ago
Unfortunately I didn't notice your reply earlier (the consequence of being productive). Rereading my previous comment I've realized there are some slight inaccuracies - keybindings are conceptually a bit complicated (at least unde
494.
by Reelin 6y ago
Neither have I outside of photographs! The trouble is that they did exist previously and X11 settled on an abstracted model that supports 5 modifiers (in addition to control, shift, and lock). You have to bear in mind that Emacs can't
495.
by Reelin 6y ago
I think you misunderstood. Control, alt, meta, hyper, and super are (at least on my current OS) distinct modifiers. There are also keys bearing some of those names on most keyboards which makes things confusing to talk about. Each modifier
496.
by Reelin 6y ago
> Can you talk about a few use cases where emacs is just better than an IDE could be? I don't use Emacs at present (Neovim instead), but I find TTY based programs to be genuinely more productive and flexible once you make it past th
497.
by Reelin 6y ago
I'd suggest that you ought to be more concerned about rights and privileges that you don't necessarily value personally (or even see as causing a problem). If you extrapolate what's been happening in China regarding the inter
498.
by Reelin 6y ago
China exerts significant influence over the production process if you want access. ( https://fortune.com/2019/10/22/hollywood-china-coproduction-... ) It's not a matter of "separated from opinion&quot
499.
by Reelin 6y ago
Does Nim really have read time macros? ( https://letoverlambda.com/index.cl/guest/chap4.html ) I don't understand what you mean by more flexible input syntax? Lisp hardly has any syntax to begin with; it's
500.
by Reelin 6y ago
Personally I'll just use ECL until CLASP gets its optimizations sorted out.
501.
by Reelin 6y ago
If you do any codegen can't all of that already happen though? Many (most?) build systems can already execute more or less arbitrary logic. Reproducible builds are only guaranteed if you actually verify the signature of the output. The
502.
by Reelin 6y ago
I love the D language but I actually think its designers got that point wrong. Compilers are _far_ from security hardened and an attacker slipping something evil into the output binary is probably equally as bad anyway (you distribute it to
503.
by Reelin 6y ago
> no court would ever uphold this removal, because it obviously falls under "parody" which is protected Not a lawyer, but... It doesn't seem like parody to me. It also doesn't seem like it has much of anything to do w
504.
by Reelin 6y ago
I'm quite puzzled as well. As far as I can tell (not a lawyer) copyright law shouldn't apply at all in this case. According to the article the actual works performed were an excerpt from Hamlet (public domain) and a song by Billy
505.
by Reelin 6y ago
The point is that copyright doesn't apply to someone's image or likeness - that's trademark! Copyright only applies to a work itself (at least in the US). A deepfake Elvis video of a song that he didn't write would be su
506.
by Reelin 6y ago
> If you don't own the copyright to your entire training data set, you are infringing by publishing something the model produces as I see it. I suspect that would be an absolutely terrible standard in practice. I realize you specifi
507.
by Reelin 6y ago
Sort of. If you enable the framework but never test positive (and thus never publish any of your keys), it's no different than if you had just kept Bluetooth on all the time. If you enable the framework, later test positive, and choose
508.
by Reelin 6y ago
> It’s alarming to me how so many in tech seem welcoming of, even excited for, this technology. It gets contact tracing right by accomplishing the goal while yielding almost no ground on privacy and remaining almost entirely offline. In
509.
by Reelin 6y ago
> If it's a crowd of people, you won't know who was what device unless their device is immediately next to the evil antenna. Actually that's not true for the situation I described. The bad actor would be able to connect an
510.
by Reelin 6y ago
It's a bit more complicated than that. What's being suggested here is that it would be possible for a bad actor to observe all Bluetooth activity over a large area. They could then use a diagnosis key to reconstruct someone's

More ›