naasking

50 ms·

871.
by naasking 1y ago
> Is there fraud in science? Yes. So your answer is throw it all out instead of rooting out the fraud? I didn't suggest any such thing. Deconstructing fallacious arguments around publicly funded science was the only objective here.
872.
by naasking 1y ago
Might be a good place to start, some citations and calculations in the replies there: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/450699 I did read actual studies that were conducted years ago, but don't have
873.
by naasking 1y ago
I wonder if this finding would hold for something like Meta's Large Concept Models.
874.
by naasking 1y ago
> It is a matter of empirical fact that we can reason with logical relationships It is a matter of empirical fact that our ability to correctly reason with logical relationships only has high statistical likelihood, not certainty. This
875.
by naasking 1y ago
> It's also vastly energetically cheaper just to have (algorithmic) negation. Even if true, that's an argument that it's cheaper to have something, not that it's cheaper to develop it through natural selection. Tr
876.
by naasking 1y ago
> It's highly implausible animals would have been endowed with no ability to operate non-probabilistically on propositions represented by them, since this is essential for correct reasoning Why would animals need to evolve 100% corr
877.
by naasking 1y ago
> In real code it can be inferred from whatever the expression is (as the other lines are). What I meant is that there would be no explicit List<T> types, or array types, or hash tables, or trees, etc. Contiguity of the data is an
878.
by naasking 1y ago
Yes, that's getting closer, but as you implied it still leaves something to be desired. Ironically what I'm describing is sort of an evolution of Access database programming from 20+ years ago. Everything old is new again.
879.
by naasking 1y ago
In F# and MetaOCaml it's called splicing: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp/language-ref...
880.
by naasking 1y ago
> But on the other hand, we have "FCC" being based on mature accelerator technologies, with well-understood cost scaling and detector integration that builds on decades on experience building accelerators. Actually it is much s
881.
by naasking 1y ago
> If you pretense everything with "what value will this bring" then you've already lost. Research is about finding things out for the sake of it. No, it's not. If research never brought any value then we would almost
882.
by naasking 1y ago
All well and good, but not an argument that the science here has to be publicly funded, and that a commercial research enterprise providing this library is not viable. The question was about what benefits come from the public funding, in pa
883.
by naasking 1y ago
Wild to come across people on HN who don't seem to understand that "knowing things" has a price tag, that there is no such thing as "no price is too high", that science that can economically justify itself shouldn&#
884.
by naasking 1y ago
Stuff like this, the Alzheimer's fraud, the superconductor fraud, etc. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/why-scientific-fraud...
885.
by naasking 1y ago
Notice how you're still specifying List types? That's not what I'm describing. You're also just describing a SQL mapping tool, which is also not really it either, though maybe that would be part of the runtime invisible
886.
by naasking 1y ago
LINQ is on the right track but doesn't quite go far enough with query composition. For instance, you can't "unquote" a query within another query (although I believe there is a library that tries to add this). EF code-fi
887.
by naasking 1y ago
That would be an explanation if new object/functional/procedural languages weren't coming out every year.
888.
by naasking 1y ago
> There are research papers that examine this question of whether runtime optimizing data structures is a win If you mean JIT and similar tech, that's not really what I'm describing either. I'm talking about lifting the ti
889.
by naasking 1y ago
Agreed, but it doesn't go far enough IMO. Why not add language/runtime support for durable list comprehensions, and also atomically updatable ones so they can be concurrently shared, etc. Bring the database into the language i
890.
by naasking 1y ago
I wish I had the time... always "some day"...
891.
by naasking 1y ago
> Hm, you could do that quite easily but there isn't much juice to be squeezed from runtime selected data structures. Set with O(1) insert: But now you've hard-coded this selection, why can't the performance characteristic
892.
by naasking 1y ago
[flagged]
893.
by naasking 1y ago
The original laser was built by the research arm of Hughes Aircraft, so I'm not sure I see the issue there. Even if Hughes was partly funded by defense, I don't really classify defense under the same category as other types of pur
894.
by naasking 1y ago
> Again, scientists are human and will do things for personal gain. Which was my original point. > But saying that all funding towards a scientific dead-end due to misdirection by individual researchers is proof of fraud in government
895.
by naasking 1y ago
> well at least astronomy is a convenient cover for military/intelligence interests funding better optics Right, defense can and has funded research for its own purposes, and sometimes those purposes can find wider commercial applic
896.
by naasking 1y ago
> Please provide evidence of fraud in government funding. Are you serious? Just go look at the recent Alzheimer's research scandal. It's the tip of the iceberg.
897.
by naasking 1y ago
> Astronomy. What benefits do you expect to see from the kinds astronomy that require this sort of funding? Sure, knowing things can be nice but this ignores opportunity costs, eg. would practical knowledge like fusion research be furthe
898.
by naasking 1y ago
> That's far from O(1). Now you need to transfer the weights back and test them. I think what matters most is that the verification is much, much cheaper than the calculation itself to prove that work was done, it doesn't expli
899.
by naasking 1y ago
> What I realized is that lower costs, and therefore lower quality, This implication is the big question mark. It's often true but it's not at all clear that it's necessarily true. Choosing better languages, frameworks
900.
by naasking 1y ago
New weights that have lower loss than the input weights is proof that work has been done.

More ›