j2kun

58 ms·

871.
by j2kun 10y ago
This story is not realistic enough to be credible, nor is it reasonable evidence as a counterpoint. "Pay for the life of his ex-wife"? What does that even mean? Is it court-ordered alimony? I can hardly believe a judge would order
872.
by j2kun 10y ago
And... you know these are immune to adversarial examples?
873.
by j2kun 10y ago
I understand that the focus on sorting is to have a simple application that everyone can understand. But I can't seriously expect people to get that excited about sorting. I sure didn't. It's not like we don't have tons
874.
by j2kun 10y ago
I'm concurrently learning Go and Node, which might not be a fair comparison but I'm going to make the comparison anyway. Node feels like a flesh wound with delicately layered bandaids. The ecosystem is a mess, you have to jerry ri
875.
by j2kun 10y ago
You invest in education, obviously. Is there any other method that works? Get rid of your television and replace your cable news subscription with a library card.
876.
by j2kun 10y ago
You seem to imply that science causes people to make mistakes. The opposite is true: people make mistakes and generate stupid ideas with reckless abandon. Science is the process of putting those ideas to objective scrutiny, and validating o
877.
by j2kun 10y ago
Nobody is saying they are, which is my entire point
878.
by j2kun 10y ago
This strikes me as a clever idea :)
879.
by j2kun 10y ago
I, for one, am using this as an excuse to teach everyone I can about encryption. So I'm willing to live with the faux outrage.
880.
by j2kun 10y ago
I'll reiterate my point: science is not immune from mistakes (nobody is arguing that), but in general, it tends to correct those mistakes over time.
881.
by j2kun 10y ago
21 Engineer here. We have some code to autodetect fake pages like this and we auto-killed the page. Nice try though!
882.
by j2kun 10y ago
That's interesting, and I didn't know it before (reference?), so thank you! But my point was to use an apolitical example to illustrate the flaw in logic. Whether or not the same organization was mismanaged is irrelevant to that p
883.
by j2kun 10y ago
Nobody said or implied that, just as an organization hoping to cure polio doesn't think that's the only illness worth curing.
884.
by j2kun 10y ago
In the actual world, though. This is why we don't perform lobotomies or think atoms are a plum pudding.
885.
by j2kun 10y ago
It's self correcting. That's the point. When it is wrong scientists admit it, and use those examples as case studies for future generations.
886.
by j2kun 10y ago
For one, they can read and understand the significance of various scientific literature that is intended to shape their policy decisions. They also generally don't support people who spew falsehoods and bullshit. Of course anyone can l
887.
by j2kun 10y ago
We have a new Erdos-Bacon number! (I assume)
888.
by j2kun 10y ago
See I'd say these are unimaginative because they're all too similar. Once you've seen one you've seen them all, and they're all the same degree of gaudy. It's like the McMansion of fractals, intended only to ov
889.
by j2kun 10y ago
> Anyway, what does "mathematically gibberish" even mean? For example, to imply that the "dimensionality" video says anything interesting about dimensionality or even anything substantial about the torus is ludicrous.
890.
by j2kun 10y ago
In my experience as a teacher, most students don't learn it either way until they have to use the skill to do something else. That's why we joke: calculus is a class where you finally learn algebra, differential equations is a cla
891.
by j2kun 10y ago
I guess, the point of a fractal is not to be imaginative, but in that the object itself is interesting. If you're saying people's unimaginative renderings of fractals are dumb, I'd be inclined to agree, but I don't think
892.
by j2kun 10y ago
What about this is more imaginative and deep than something like a fractal? If anything these videos seem more hokey to me in that they are implying a deep connection between the mathematical model and reality (where there might be none, or
893.
by j2kun 10y ago
Bostrom does not define posthuman (so saying "no wiggle room" is ridiculous), so these conclusions about what posthumans understand and do not understand are unjustified and moot. But let me continue: Bostrom assumes all simulated
894.
by j2kun 10y ago
Is there an old use of the word patch that doesn't directly relate to physical holes (eg., would someone call fixing a tear a "patch"?). If no, then the line of reasoning still makes sense, because without punch cards there w
895.
by j2kun 10y ago
Just corroborating your story.
896.
by j2kun 10y ago
I know people who commute from Tracy to Hayward just to attend community college.
897.
by j2kun 10y ago
You have already made it clear that you think his argument is undeniable. But since you insist on trolling, let me start with the obvious one. In order to simulate a human brain, you need to simulate physics. Not a mathematical model of phy
898.
by j2kun 10y ago
If you cannot convincingly argue the opposing side, then you have not thought hard enough about it. If you have no room for doubt, then there is no point discussing it. You have reduced science to zealotry. Don't waste my time.
899.
by j2kun 10y ago
Oh I've read it. It's a fun game to read through it and write down all the unfounded assumptions the author makes. It also doesn't help that his ideas about the complexity of the human brain are sorely outdated.
900.
by j2kun 10y ago
It is not a conjecture, it is a valid argument on unsound premises.

More ›