Strilanc

82 ms·

781.
by Strilanc 12y ago
Because blocking on tasks is a deadlock waiting to happen [0], and creates UI hiccups when the task takes longer than 16ms to complete. In other words, the conditions you must satisfy for using Task.Wait or Task.Result are very complicated
782.
by Strilanc 12y ago
Async/await makes a lot of asynchronous code easier to write, which is great, but it amplifies some of the mistakes people were already making. The two examples in the post are: - Developers won't anticipate that accessing a task&
783.
by Strilanc 12y ago
Looks like a poor rewording of something from the paper, where it basically says that conservation of energy is a consequence of the laws of motion instead of an assumption: > In the theory we present here, the status of information in p
784.
by Strilanc 12y ago
The article is poor. I think the research is another take on how finite reversible systems end up cycling. Their entropy has to eventually decrease because as a path through the phase space runs out of places to go it must return to the i
785.
by Strilanc 12y ago
You can still synchronize them, it's just that "synchronize" takes on a more complicated meaning. Both sides can use their clock, and the known positions of the two clocks over time, to predict the time that the other clock s
786.
by Strilanc 12y ago
Probably nothing more than usual. The local operations you can do to entangled particles are all commutative w.r.t. the operations applied by the other side. So whether they happened at the same time or before or after or slower or faster t
787.
by Strilanc 12y ago
Hm, embarrassing, I just assumed you were doing the naive brute force. You're de-interleaving the digits with an order swap when the digits first start to differ.
788.
by Strilanc 12y ago
You can cut a lot of the boilerplate in your code by using existing functions (apologies if I get the argument orders wrong): def best_digit_choice_to_maximize_product(n, digits): numer = lambda d: reduce( sorted(d, re
789.
by Strilanc 12y ago
Misleading title. The article talks about how choosing the optimal set of transactions to include in a block is NP-Hard, and the typical implementation uses a simple greedy approximation. But I thought I was going to read about someone do
790.
by Strilanc 12y ago
I think he's saying that the in-game thinking is unconscious (fast, practiced, muscle-memory) but remembered as conscious, and it must be the former because things are happening too fast.
791.
by Strilanc 12y ago
I don't think the JREF would accept them as an applicant. The JREF specializes on much smaller scale tests where they can stop shenanigans and allow for very low p-values. For example, they'll task a dowser with determining which
792.
by Strilanc 12y ago
Doubly confusing because Signal was originally going to be called Whisper [1]. 1: https://whispersystems.org/blog/a-whisper/
793.
by Strilanc 12y ago
One neat trick is "storing bandwidth". http://strilanc.com/quantum/2014/05/03/Storing-Bandwidth-wit...
794.
by Strilanc 12y ago
With 1 or 2 qubits you wouldn't even be able to compute 2 + 2 because storing 4 in binary requires 3 bits. 100 qubits is also not particularly useful, not because they aren't fast but because most of the interesting stuff simply
795.
by Strilanc 12y ago
Scott Aaronson has a bunch of well-cited papers related to quantum algorithms [1]. That merits you at least explaining how his explanation is not illuminating instead of blankly asserting it. I know that I found it pretty illuminating whe
796.
by Strilanc 12y ago
Story checks out [1]. Yeah, that's me. Wc3 mapping was fun times for sure. 1: https://github.com/Strilanc/Wc3PowerTowers/blob/3b93a83cf63f...
797.
by Strilanc 12y ago
A "multiple kill calls" bug is your typical unexpected violation of ever-mounting implicit ordering constraints. For example, you might write: while true: ... if (!wasDead && dead) startFadeOut() ..
798.
by Strilanc 12y ago
When someone tells me they play the lottery for entertainment, I lose a serious amount of respect for them. There's being irrational, and then there's understanding exactly how your irrationality is being exploited and just goin
799.
by Strilanc 12y ago
If you can compute a number's digits (i.e. approximate it), then you can see if they start repeating or not. If you compute a billion digits and they don't repeat yet, and you have no reason to expect the number to be a fraction w
800.
by Strilanc 12y ago
So... don't look up while standing on the bridge, lest someone else look at it and cause it to disappear.
801.
by Strilanc 12y ago
Any quantum state that doesn't factor is "entangled". That includes both matching, inverse-matching, and more complicated states with more qubits like "last two qubits contain binary count of how many of the first three
802.
by Strilanc 12y ago
Not sure what I think of this. In particular, it seems to be hard-coding effects instead of deriving them from quantum-like rules. This is particularly obvious if you watch the tutorial video for "quantum teleportation" [2]. Altho
803.
by Strilanc 12y ago
Usually I agree with Eliezer, but this is one of the cases where I don't. Randomness is a useful tool that you can use to make algorithms more efficient and harder to exploit. In fact, there are several examples in the wikipedia articl
804.
by Strilanc 12y ago
An off the wall idea: have the pilot duplicate work being done by the computer. Not to control the plane, but just to keep them alert. i.e. imagine a driverless car that only works when you tell it to do approximately what it was going to d
805.
by Strilanc 12y ago
Modeling cards as independent and linear is a vast vast oversimplification. It doesn't account for card synergy, exhausting your opponent's counters, managing your mana curve, managing your hand size, etc. For example, Shadowste
806.
by Strilanc 12y ago
How do you explain Bell inequality violations without involving entanglement? If we get quantum computers working at a non-trivial scale, would you consider that to be strong evidence for entanglement?
807.
by Strilanc 12y ago
I'm not sure why you're grouping entanglement in with the multiverse. One of those is a theoretical idea for reducing the Solomonoff complexity of the universe with no clear experimental implications. The other is an integral comp
808.
by Strilanc 12y ago
The term you're looking for is counterfactual computation [1]: > We show that "interaction-free" measurements can be regarded as counterfactual computations, and our results then imply that N [the number of times that the
809.
by Strilanc 12y ago
> Not becoming an idiot is the best solution [...] [...] but don't assume that you'll ever be good enough to not be an idiot. Try to converge on it if possible through. I'm still an idiot with C and I've been doing it
810.
by Strilanc 12y ago
Correct. There's spatial dimensions, where you can put the points, and degrees of freedom, the number of numbers you specify when setting up a system. The word dimension can refer to either definition (and others), depending on the con

More ›