Retra

86 ms·

901.
by Retra 8y ago
Personally, I'd rather be bold and let people associate me with the title they don't like. At least then they may have an opportunity to question their assumptions.
902.
by Retra 8y ago
Is it not bizarre?
903.
by Retra 8y ago
A computer can predict with 100% confidence if you give it few enough measurements. That doesn't mean it will make the correct decisions. You have to already know you're measuring the right things.
904.
by Retra 8y ago
If programmers sat around writing <10K line pure programs with no user interaction, they would have just as lovely a time as Mathematicians. If theorem proving in mathematics is easy for you, it is because your aren't trying to prov
905.
by Retra 8y ago
... assuming you correctly wrote your theorem in those frameworks.
906.
by Retra 8y ago
No, it is an old term.
907.
by Retra 8y ago
Well, that's not what he said, and he still is one of the world's best mathematicians. So one wonders why you would take that surprise as indicative of a mistake on his part rather than on yours?
908.
by Retra 8y ago
Trying to do learn math with a computer is frustration. The computer eats up your desk space, you have to constantly move it around as you work on different things, a mouse and keyboard eat up even more space. You have to have power, and yo
909.
by Retra 8y ago
The painful part is that you're using tools which are trying to bridge between wildly different logical foundations. Just because a computer beeps and says "proof correct" doesn't mean you've proven what you thought
910.
by Retra 8y ago
There's a good deal of ambiguity in Haskell, but people tend to resolve it with operators like '$'. But I'd argue that it works very well in Haskell due to the fact that whitespace as function application and automatic c
911.
by Retra 8y ago
You say "good IT security policies", but you really mean "perfect IT security policies"?
912.
by Retra 8y ago
Somebody builds a vile criminal enterprise on the back of some 'sensitive' information, and suddenly you cannot expose their atrocities without violating the law. And then you have the beginnings of a dystopian dictatorship.
913.
by Retra 8y ago
Use your hours to make money? That's what you spend time at work for.
914.
by Retra 8y ago
They have a lot more experience driving, but humans do not only use their driving experiences as priors.
915.
by Retra 8y ago
White noise certainly isn't the only indicator that one can't see well.
916.
by Retra 8y ago
Well, that's a great question. It's also basically equivalent to the one that I asked. My point would be that I don't have an answer to that question, and given your response, I bet you don't either. Which leaves either
917.
by Retra 8y ago
Some basic knowledge of traction and momentum go a long way. Your car will generally go the way it is heading, as far as it can slide. Every time I see people lose control in the snow and ice, it is because they're driving with their b
918.
by Retra 8y ago
How does a car know it can't see well?
919.
by Retra 8y ago
Yes, it is trivial to calculate how to respond to known hazards. What is hard to calculate is what the hazards actually are in any given situation. Humans don't merely look at the road and compute how much standing water is there, they
920.
by Retra 8y ago
For an adult, that sounds reasonable. For a child, you're stealing actual brain development and enculturation time.
921.
by Retra 8y ago
Languages don't really die. Especially not popular ones.
922.
by Retra 8y ago
I think the idea is that people stop optimizing for speed as soon as it gets "fast enough", and what "fast enough" means doesn't change at all if you make better tools and machines. Faster machines and tools only re
923.
by Retra 8y ago
Never, ever, ever isn't a reasonable expectation. You have no guarantee that they won't rip up the constitution and enslave you tomorrow. But you can expect it not to happen because you're a reasonable person and because the
924.
by Retra 8y ago
It doesn't matter if a hurricane causes death or merely correlates with it, you have a responsibility to do the right thing. Failing to do so because you want an impractical distinction between causation and correlation is about as muc
925.
by Retra 8y ago
The point is not to compare oneself to famous people or groups to score cheap authority points.
926.
by Retra 8y ago
Your inability to imagine something is hardly an experience worth sharing.
927.
by Retra 8y ago
And what facts do you base these assertions on?
928.
by Retra 8y ago
It certainly has no obligation to appeal to our sensibilities...
929.
by Retra 8y ago
What I mean is that 'one person can understand the whole system' doesn't mean that everybody has to understand it in the same way. It can be understood using different abstractions.
930.
by Retra 8y ago
One could also build those things as a network of systems, each understood and built separately.

More ›