algorias

15 ms·

121.
by algorias 9y ago
I was wondering the same. It wouldn't surprise me if this was a submarine PR campaign [1] spreading FUD about meat replacements. [1]: http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html
122.
by algorias 9y ago
Thanks, this looks like exactly what I need. I hacked together something similar in python a few years back, but it wasn't as elegant and general.
123.
by algorias 9y ago
I have this childhood memory of parking spaces made of concrete tiles with holes in them, with grass growing through the holes. Now I finally know what they're for :)
124.
by algorias 9y ago
In absence of a specific number the only sane thing to assume is that it's way closer to $1 than to the cost of the plane. Such an easy and obvious marketing tactic.
125.
by algorias 9y ago
Even if all you say is true and the guy is an odious anti-feminist, the points he made should be debated and refuted, not silenced. Even if most people that make similar points are just "weaseling around" and justifying their raci
126.
by algorias 9y ago
2. Then what is the goal? the way many diversity policies are worded, it is not clear if there is any situation where success would be declared. This leads to many people feeling that they have in fact been bending over backwards to achie
127.
by algorias 9y ago
> In some sense, this is due to the fact that the state space grows exponentially What I take issue with is precisely the conflation of the size of the state space with the quantum speedup. Shor's algorithm is fast because QFT (quan
128.
by algorias 9y ago
I know what a Hilbert space is, and I also know that this 2^n-dimensional space cannot be accessed except through a destructive measurement operation. An exponential state space does not imply that there is exponential computing power to be
129.
by algorias 9y ago
> Now. "Exponential" is faster than most people, including myself, can believe. When one unit of resource doubles your computational capacity, it doesn't take many units. Please don't make bullshit claims about expone
130.
by algorias 9y ago
I believe the poster upthread already considered only restricted characters (upper + lower + digits), so the difficulty they stated is what remains after your analysis. > Man can make it, man can break it, there is simply no exception.
131.
by algorias 9y ago
A similar problem is also the smallest enclosing ball of a point set. A solver for that is available, implemented in C++ [0]. Both of these problems can be generalized to finding the sink of a unique sink orientation [1], so there is in fac
132.
by algorias 10y ago
> If a hobby is something you really enjoy it will not feel like work. Sorry, that's just not true. There are lots of interesting, rewarding hobbies that do feel like work, in the sense that they require a fresh mind capable of be
133.
by algorias 10y ago
Better source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-kansas-india-idUSKBN1630LZ
134.
by algorias 10y ago
Yeah I think you're right. just playing an equilibrium is suboptimal in the sense that it doesn't extract maximal value from the opponent. You want to be playing a best response to the opponent's strategy. That's what yo
135.
by algorias 10y ago
Having a poker AI that plays deterministic strategies is an obviously terrible idea, for the precise reason you mention. It makes much more sense for the strategy space to be the set of probability distributions over game moves (i.e. mixed
136.
by algorias 10y ago
I think you misread but its not (enough to be comfortable) as but its (not enough) to be comfortable
137.
by algorias 10y ago
I think you underestimate how hard the original problem is. Small decisions can cascade and have effects very far away on the map. Also, in what exact sense do you mean convex? Furthermore, SAT is hard in theory but the kind of very structu
138.
by algorias 10y ago
The tricky task of label placement could be outsourced to a SAT solver. The way it works is that for every city, town etc you generate a few placement candidates (4 positions around the point like you do seems fine) and then calculate all t
139.
by algorias 10y ago
This is not a very nice way to formulate your objection, but I have to agree. Believing things because you'd like them to be true is a terrible way of trying to get at the truth, and the arguments for that position are the most contort
140.
by algorias 10y ago
There are things you are not allowed to do even on your own property for very good reasons, e.g. storing radioactive waste. Limits on building height can make sense in some places, even if not in this particular case.
141.
by algorias 10y ago
It is considered a serious problem by many, being a key part of the whole replication crisis. The idea that studies need to be preregistered is slowly gaining ground I feel.
142.
by algorias 10y ago
What you mean is "si fueras mexicano". "si seas" is just wrong.
143.
by algorias 10y ago
The difference with caller ID is, of course, that you need to deliberately initiate an action (calling someone you don't trust) for it to "erode" your privacy. Facial recognition can be done to you on the street by anybody, w
144.
by algorias 10y ago
Recently my mom ended up with windows 10, despite not intending to upgrade. No idea how it exactly happened. Anyway, as a result all her .docx files got associated with microsoft office (yes, during the upgrade windows "forgot" he
145.
by algorias 10y ago
I don't understand your "without due process" statement. Surely there is a process for granting someone immunity? Jail time does seem appropriate for non-compliance with a legally binding judicial order (I'm not endorsin
146.
by algorias 10y ago
I had to chuckle at this passage from the first link: > participants were shown a list of activities (e.g., biking, reading) directly below the following instructions: “Below is a list of leisure activities. If you are reading this, plea
147.
by algorias 11y ago
> Of course, this type of single-snapshot-in-time study can’t tell us whether the athletes’ training actually changed their muscle health over the years or if the athletes were somehow blessed from birth with better muscles, allowing the
148.
by algorias 11y ago
Correct, but I didn't claim what you are refuting. I just said that there is no upper bound to "how polynomiallly hard" a problem can get, i.e. Knuths intuition is wrong.
149.
by algorias 11y ago
The argument is not only unconvincing, it is incorrect. The time hierarchy theorem implies the existence of problems of difficulty n^M for arbitrary M, and all those problems are clearly in NP.
150.
by algorias 11y ago
Many of us have laughed at Stallman at one point or another for his extreme paranoia. But this is something he saw coming miles ahead. Not so funny anymore.

More ›