jonahx

57 ms·

931.
by jonahx 8y ago
> just answered a few questions in the chat there is no "just" about that...
932.
by jonahx 8y ago
This is awesome, many thanks. Jeremy, I know you're a fellow fan of J -- is it possible to do modern ML with J? It seems like numpy is just a worse version of the array paradigm from J/APL, but I'm guessing all the specializ
933.
by jonahx 8y ago
I agree. To be clear, I wasn't arguing against the need for dispassionate analysis. Or arguing that emotional responses can always be trusted. I was arguing only against the claim that these two things are mutually exclusive. >
934.
by jonahx 8y ago
> The problem with this code isn’t that it’s “ugly”. We’re not talking about aesthetics. The problem is that if there is a bug in this code, I don’t know where to start looking. But this is precisely what people mean when they say it&#x2
935.
by jonahx 8y ago
Yes, I understood that. I was essentially asking if the techniques used by DeepMind could be leveraged to create a much more powerful version of AI's like Libratus, or to become very strong at games too big to solve for GTO solutions,
936.
by jonahx 8y ago
Does anyone know if this opens the door to using these techniques for poker (given that they've now show success on games of imperfect information)? Thus far the solutions to poker have involved solving the game tree through raw comput
937.
by jonahx 8y ago
Then we agree.
938.
by jonahx 8y ago
> This seems to neatly capture the problem. If you can paint the other side as irrational, it excuses almost any pre-emptive bad behavior. I'd argue that this response neatly captures the flip side of the problem. To quote my othe
939.
by jonahx 8y ago
Sure, I agree with this. > you shouldn't do anything that affects the person beyond what is necessary to defend tolerance. This is the tricky part. What if violence is necessary? You can claim it should always be a last resort, an
940.
by jonahx 8y ago
I have no idea why this is being downvoted. Logically, that both these arguments can be made is a truism. Practically, we see versions of this on both sides every day. It doesn't mean that the left and right are both wrong, or both ab
941.
by jonahx 8y ago
> Being intolerant of intolerance does not necessitate being intolerant of the intolerant. How does it not? At some point things come into conflict. As an example, religious views that condemn homosexuality as evil. Adherents of those
942.
by jonahx 8y ago
This is a risk, but the risk cuts the other way too. From the Popper quote in the article: > for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they
943.
by jonahx 8y ago
> The math tells us it cannot be done with computers. Read Penrose. I'm familiar with Penrose. He's interesting, and I don't have a firm opinion on this (ie maybe it turns out it is impossible), but presenting the case as
944.
by jonahx 8y ago
> but have a hard time believing that can be done via computers. Much of the skepticism isn't about whether this can be done in theory. It's about "how close" we are given the current state of the art (beating Go, ch
945.
by jonahx 8y ago
A well tested (js) library that does such animated filtering well is: https://isotope.metafizzy.co/
946.
by jonahx 8y ago
Agreed. It seems an odd inclusion for a visual proof. And afaik there's no simple visual way to demonstrate the impossibility of angle trisection. The proofs use the complex machinery of abstract algebra.
947.
by jonahx 8y ago
The visualization is beautifully instructive, too -- the essence of the algorithm explained in about a second.
948.
by jonahx 8y ago
Great video to give you the right high-level perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olH-9b3VJfs
949.
by jonahx 8y ago
Which of those links do you most recommend, if any?
950.
by jonahx 8y ago
Terrific post. Thanks for taking the time to write it.
951.
by jonahx 8y ago
Would you mind elaborating on this for someone unfamiliar?
952.
by jonahx 8y ago
A good, fully-featured note-taking application is incredibly complex.
953.
by jonahx 8y ago
> Anyways, most of this is moot without real code. Agreed, I hesitated answering because of this, but oh well. > What is locally global supposed to mean? It means within this local context, we have 7 global variables. Just because th
954.
by jonahx 8y ago
You shouldn't conclude from this that the rule is bad. Because the original code, while preferable to the version with 3 classes, is not good either. Indeed, as this makes clear: // ACTUAL 1: COMMENTS => METHODS a,
955.
by jonahx 8y ago
The pub situation feels very different: There you have the a 600 year tradition and the enjoyment of a whole neighborhood/community pitted against the annoyance of a single person. The ruling feels unjust, and I have little sympathy f
956.
by jonahx 8y ago
This is a terrific vsauce video on transfinite numbers, which assumes almost no background: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrU9YDoXE88
957.
by jonahx 8y ago
I was referring to response time in a GUI app -- 9ms is undetectable. Again, if you have a reason the speed matters, then it matters. The specific numbers here are not relevant to my argument, which boils down to: being "slow",
958.
by jonahx 8y ago
It could be. And when I have evidence that user experience is affected, I'll care about the difference. But what if it's 1ms vs 3ms? Or 3ms vs 9ms? And the 9ms time is a much more expressive, productive, high-level language? I
959.
by jonahx 8y ago
That's fair. If it's 90s and it's part of a developer workflow that is triggered more than a few times a day, it matters. I haven't worked with Swift in particular, but in general you might be able to do incremental co
960.
by jonahx 8y ago
> if your application was freezing for 78 seconds waiting for a screen redraw 78 seconds was the compile time. The runtimes were almost identical: 0.45 seconds to run the entire test suite in the fastest case vs 1.3 in the slowest.

More ›