pavelrub

18 ms·

121.
by pavelrub 10y ago
You are right, I didn't really think about the practical implications. oldPin = bestPin makes a lot more sense now :) Thanks.
122.
by pavelrub 10y ago
Very cool! How much is it affected by the method of new pin selection after each time we add a line? I.e. currently you are doing oldPin = bestPin, and the first pin is selected at random... wouldn't it be better to just add lines base
123.
by pavelrub 10y ago
The reasons you consider it to be such a good film probably have more to do with cinematography than writing, acting or directing. The beautiful shots are a direct result of Emmanuel Lubezki being the DP - the same style can be seen in Bird
124.
by pavelrub 10y ago
It is a matter of fact that a huge number of people are excited about space colonization. So it is obviously important to them. How about letting them do what excites them, instead of telling them that their problem isn't "real&qu
125.
by pavelrub 10y ago
The problem is that your notion of "real problems" is artificial. If our society prioritizes space colonization above eliminating nuclear stockpiles, and people are willing to accept the risk posed by the existence of those stock
126.
by pavelrub 10y ago
Yes let's stop all scientific and technological progress which isn't directly related to achieving utopia on earth, until a hypothetical point in the future that will never come. Is everything you do and find important in life dir
127.
by pavelrub 10y ago
Sorry about the 7 - 5S confusion. However you still haven't provided any arguments for why the difference in noise cancellation between 5S and 7 is "critically important". The scenario where it is "critically important&q
128.
by pavelrub 10y ago
Having the general ability to hear and be heard clearly on the phone is indeed critically important. Expecting it to be possible at all times and with zero background noise isn't, and nobody expects this from his/her phone. Nor am
129.
by pavelrub 10y ago
Hearing some background noise when taking to somebody in Starbucks isn't "critically important".
130.
by pavelrub 10y ago
What is it with HN and belief in various absurd conspiracy theories? Is it an American thing?
131.
by pavelrub 10y ago
This is false. Pre-launch accidents are covered by marine cargo insurance.
132.
by pavelrub 10y ago
Of course it's not covered by launch insurance - it happened during the pre-launch stage. It was covered by marine cargo insurance.
133.
by pavelrub 10y ago
An insect flying in front of the camera lens. You can see this multiple times throughout the video: 0:54, 4:28, 4:41...
134.
by pavelrub 10y ago
What the author doesn't seem to understand is that alpine ascents in general aren't done in the form of organized competitions, so the entire comparison to anti-doping regulations in sports is quite absurd: you can't tell peo
135.
by pavelrub 10y ago
> if you can prove 1+1=2 at all, then the generalization to n+m=l (where l is the "intuitive" value of n+m) should be easy enough to use directly But the proof of 1+1=2 is itself trivial in PA. So this really doesn't mean
136.
by pavelrub 10y ago
Okay. So according to you, the explicit proofs of the following facts, using the Peano axioms, are all meaningful for mathematics: 1. 2+2=4 2. 3+2=5 3. 3+3=6 4. 4+3=7 5. 4+4=8 Is there any serious mathematical work that explicitly proved th
137.
by pavelrub 10y ago
No, because I can be very specific about the condition of my monitor, without reference to any theory of color (I can just say: in the exact conditions my monitor is in at this moment, or in the conditions of a darkened room, where no exter
138.
by pavelrub 10y ago
I think I wasn't clear enough. I never meant that axiomatic proofs in general are meaningless, only that axiomatic proofs of trivial arithmetic facts (1+1=2, 2+2=4...) are meaningless.
139.
by pavelrub 10y ago
> So you're using a numeric representation of colors (RGB) to prove to me that black is darker than red. No, I’m not doing that at all - I’m simply creating a well-defined understanding between us about which colors we are talking a
140.
by pavelrub 10y ago
I’ve already told you what to do if the term “pure black” causes problems. The color represented by #600000 on my monitor is always darker than the color represented by #FF0000, regardless of the existence of any theory of color. If you cla
141.
by pavelrub 10y ago
There is theoretical pure black in any modern representation of color. If the term confuses you, you can replaces it with #000000. If the black vs red comparison still confuses you, you can replace it with #600000 vs #FF0000. You might also
142.
by pavelrub 10y ago
Not having a word for 4 and doubting that 2+2=4 aren't the same thing. The former means that you cannot understand what the proposition means, while the latter means that you do understand what it means, but aren't convinced that
143.
by pavelrub 10y ago
Pure black is never lighter than any shade of red, by any definition of "dark" or "lightness" that I'm aware of. The point here is that again the words "dark" didn't come into language from some rigor
144.
by pavelrub 10y ago
Well yes, if there were actual mammal-mushrooms then it would make the proposition more credible, and rightly so. The whole reason why "a mammal can not be a plant" argument works is because it assumes we know that there is no suc
145.
by pavelrub 10y ago
I'm not saying anything about the ability to check proofs, or the value of axiomatic proofs in general, only that 2+2=4 specifically doesn't require an axiomatic proof in order to convince anybody that it is true. This is like sa
146.
by pavelrub 10y ago
There is nothing wrong with the logic here. It doesn't mean that "Lenin was a bottle nose dolphin" would have been more plausible - it simply means that a different argument would be used to refute it (such as: "a human
147.
by pavelrub 10y ago
2+2=4 is obvious. The axiomatic proofs are mostly a meaningless and boring exercise that mathematicians invented when they wanted to axiomatize everything. They have nothing to do with whether something is obvious or not. It isn't as
148.
by pavelrub 10y ago
The name has nothing to do with Google. D-Wave Systems is the name of the company that developed and manufactured the computer.
149.
by pavelrub 11y ago
ISIS just claimed responsibility for the attacks.
150.
by pavelrub 11y ago
Where did the author say that MCTS alone is enough to beat Go? His point was that in Go MCTS seems to significantly improve results (which is true), while for some other games this isn't the case. Therefore an algorithm which strongly

More ›