jegp

5 ms·

1.
by jegp 7d ago
You make some great points that I largely agree with. I'm wondering whether I'm misrepresenting you though, because I'm not arriving at the same "everything looks like a nail" conclusion. One thing I'd like to
2.
by jegp 7d ago
I've seen quite a few academics wrangling with patents. What should come first? Proliferation of the sciences or (potential) profit? Your point about the golden goose is pretty interesting and others in this thread has pointed to the m
3.
by jegp 7d ago
I actually disagree that software is a static program. If a program always have the same behaviour, it's a pretty bad program. You need inputs and, as demonstrated by the recent LLM inputs, parameters you can tune to correctly address
4.
by jegp 7d ago
In principle I would agree. But, on a more philosophical level, couldn't you make that same argument about C? Or even assembly? Or even digital computers? Less facetious, it seems to me that the particular abstraction is less important
5.
by jegp 7d ago
Regarding the biggest: nixpkgs sits at around 140k packages, way more than others. Best: I still argue that Docker and Conda are more accessible, but my point was to go for reproducible, declarative science. Nix environments are exactly tha
6.
by jegp 7d ago
I'd love to hear you expand on how I cherry pick terms and definitions. The Turing Way seems great and I'm all for education. One of the most interesting conversation topics in this thread is, to me, how to create the necessary in
7.
by jegp 7d ago
This seems to be strongly US-centric. In other (welfare) countries, publicly funded registries are anonymized and made available to research. For every single case. Of course, there are tons of data we don't see, but that shouldn&#x2
8.
by jegp 7d ago
Well said! And thank you for recognizing the effort. The important part here is, as you say, to light candles and insist on rigor. Coincidentally, history tells us that that also gets us further. So by pure memetic selection, this strategy
9.
by jegp 7d ago
I agree that a lot of the practices in academia are misaligned with the original goal. But can't you say that for other systems/institutions as well? Point being, what about keeping the scientific method as the north star - as a g
10.
by jegp 7d ago
100%. I'm not saying the vision we're talking about is there yet, I just think it's an enticing thought. The existence of (predatory) publishers is a sad and miserable joke in its own right.
11.
by jegp 7d ago
I think the idea does: the point is that closed-source software isn't useful for anyone else than the (copyright)owner. In scientific standards, that is. Similar to esoteric and cryptic theories that resist accessible explanations.
12.
by jegp 7d ago
:-) I can comfort you with the fact that the text is not AI generated. I did use AI to proof read it and I liked some of its suggestions to improve the flow of the text. English isn't my first language, so this is a great help for me.
13.
by jegp 7d ago
Erm. Why?
14.
by jegp 7d ago
Thanks! I appreciate that. Your point about DeepMind and frontier models is spot on. When they "embody"/build on the science done before them we get absolutely mindblowing synergies. But I wonder what happens when the LLMs be
15.
by jegp 7d ago
Thank you for engaging. This is a much more insightful take. If I'm reading yiur argument right, you're saying that deployed models are downstream versions (reified) of aa theory. Theory, being the actual object of science. I thin
16.
by jegp 7d ago
Thanks for the well wishes
17.
by jegp 7d ago
Arguments are fine. Vacuous statements need grounding. The follow-up is way more detailed
18.
by jegp 8d ago
I agree the post is muddy about whether the relationship is bijective (equivalent, poodle=dog) or injective (onto, poodle is a dog). I make it slightly more precise in the statement "I posit that open source software is a necessary con
19.
by jegp 8d ago
Did you read the post...?
20.
by jegp 8d ago
Equivalent? In the analogy of the math or physics results it would be a mental model in someone's brain that you can't access or verify. You just hope it's true
21.
by jegp 8d ago
TL;DR I claim that modern science is synonymous with open source software. This post explains why, why it matters, and what you can (and should) do next.
22.
Science Is Open Software(jepedersen.dk)
161 points by jegp 8d ago|73 comments
23.
by jegp 1y ago
What's your stack? After reading this, self hosting suddenly appeals to me.
24.
by jegp 1y ago
Great. If they can make some money out of this, why not? I wonder what happens if they lock down some features as premium-only. The competition is tight in this space and there are tons of alternatives to Hyprland, like Sway, River, etc. Mo
25.
by jegp 1y ago
Is the code for the "feeling lucky" selection mechanism open? Or, do you know how they select papers at random?
26.
by jegp 1y ago
That's a great point. I thought about something similar, but I also realized the arXiv numbers are growing like crazy, so I wonder how long it'll take for the (hardcoded) numbers to be deprecated. One could of course add some kind
27.
by jegp 1y ago
Thanks for this! If I knew this existed, I wouldn't have built the page myself.
28.
Show HN: Grab a Random ArXiv Paper(jepedersen.dk)
13 points by jegp 1y ago|6 comments
29.
by jegp 2y ago
Conflicting motivations sounds like a very reasonable thing in large populations, in fact. But I have a hard time believing why workers wouldn't unanimously want better pay, better conditions, and more power. I would be curious to see
30.
by jegp 2y ago
Isn't the question then about the lesser evil? It's wrong to deny unions on the basis that some people are corrupt. Some people in companies are corrupt too and the US lies squarely in the middle of the corruption index https:&#x

More ›