epgui

26 ms·

421.
by epgui 2y ago
Kidneys are insanely complex organs.
422.
by epgui 2y ago
The parent commenter didn’t say anything about civilian Russians.
423.
by epgui 2y ago
No, that’s not at all what the parent commenter was saying.
424.
by epgui 2y ago
I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted, because it’s true. Maybe people just have no idea how “fundamental analysis” works or even what it means? This is how it works. That doesn’t mean you’re going to beat the market, or even make a posit
425.
by epgui 2y ago
Anything that needs enzymes to function would break down without quantum effects.
426.
by epgui 2y ago
I’m sorry, but your projectile example is just terrible. We’ve known for decades that the proper functioning of many (most?) enzymes depend on quantum effects. Your body would just break down otherwise.
427.
by epgui 2y ago
Yes, opinions about which foods people prefer. Not “opinions” on the factuality of scientific knowledge (which is a large part of what feeds into discord at the political level— avoidably so).
428.
by epgui 2y ago
The current ozone situation is very bad and worsening.
429.
by epgui 2y ago
Personally, I'd argue that I don't find OO to be desirable in a shell anyway. The future is FP for almost everything. (This is a really neat tool, great work!)
430.
by epgui 2y ago
I mean that's true, but at the risk of stating the obvious, people should not be mistaken to think that this represents the "information content" of the brain (except perhaps in a very narrow and technical sense). If you did
431.
by epgui 2y ago
> Except marijuana absolutely isn't legalized I don't know where you live, but I buy my marijuana from a government store. There exist other countries.
432.
by epgui 2y ago
And I'm saying that "experiencing" is a matter of degree, just as "consciousness" is. It's not there or not there, it's not a boolean. It's a question of "how much complexity is there".
433.
by epgui 2y ago
Yeah I'm with you-- my comment wasn't antagonistic, it was just an addendum along the same/similar line of thought :) Personally, I think the "hard problem of consciousness" is more or less just nonsense and can be
434.
by epgui 2y ago
I don’t want to litigate “free will”, but a computer can be compared to an organism just fine if you stick to concrete terms like “complexity of behaviour” or “how directly its behaviour is programmed” (very directly) as opposed to indirect
435.
by epgui 2y ago
When you consider that human behaviour is just trained by evolution and experience, with a bunch of stochastic effects in the mix, it’s hard to justify this magical notion of agency. At best, agency could be seen as a “degree of indirectnes
436.
by epgui 2y ago
You’re just using another slippery term when you invoke “experience” in that way though. We know that experience is just chemistry with higher-order structure, even in humans.
437.
by epgui 2y ago
Essentially yes. Seeing consciousness as a boolean “it’s there” or “it’s not there” is just completely unproductive of a mental model. We understand nature better when we think in terms of “how complex an organism’s behaviour is” or “how co
438.
by epgui 2y ago
The kind of application of DRY you describe is not what the author has a problem with. What you describe is totally reasonable. Have you never seen more junior engineers make code 1000x worse (bordering on nonsensical), with them proudly sa
439.
by epgui 2y ago
You make it sound like understanding the domain is some sort of pontification…
440.
by epgui 2y ago
That would be a great argument if it were a response to a comment other than the one I made.
441.
by epgui 2y ago
It’s a great way of getting to know what the landscape of mathematics looks like.
442.
by epgui 2y ago
There are of course a lot of things I would like to change or improve, but I don't know if I share your broad pessimism on academia or research. Science and engineering are very different endeavours, and while both should take lessons
443.
by epgui 2y ago
Nobody has been censored, I did not call you a creationist, and I did not dismiss you. If you say or write things in public, you can't reasonably get upset when people engage with you with either criticism or nuance. When someone says
444.
by epgui 2y ago
Because I legitimately thought it would be a field where I could maximize how much of my brain I used. Instead, it turned out to be 99% dishwashing. I very much loved undergraduate studies. I legitimately love studying what has been done an
445.
by epgui 2y ago
> I'm not from the USA. Cool, me neither... > I even said don't shoot the messenger! Except you're not really carrying a message from someone else, and that's not a magic incantation shielding your ideas from criti
446.
by epgui 2y ago
You're throwing words around in apparent criticism, but there's no substance to it. Environmental protection policies should be about as controversial as the idea that we shouldn't shit where we eat. If you want to call that
447.
by epgui 2y ago
Yes you're right that it's a global problem, but that should not be an objection to taking initiative.
448.
by epgui 2y ago
This is basically why I quit cancer research to go into software. It was like trying to debug via the postal service. You do something to your cell cultures, and you only find out 6 weeks later if something went wrong. And because a million
449.
by epgui 2y ago
I’ve always found that the Go language is simple in all the ways that don’t matter. (In contrast to languages like Haskell and Clojure, which are simple in most of the ways that matter.)
450.
by epgui 2y ago
There is no notion of types in naive set theory.

More ›