platz

73 ms·

931.
by platz 7y ago
"These are Gothic High-Tech figures, people who position themselves in the narrative rather than building any permanent infrastructure"
932.
by platz 7y ago
Jaron Lanier made a pretty good argument that the dedication and belief of freedom of information in the 80's is what pushed businesses to adopt the advertisement/surveillance capitalism model
933.
by platz 7y ago
TP's I don't think have quite borne out the usefullness-to-complexity ratio
934.
by platz 7y ago
unfortunately C# pattern matching is really only a glorified switch with destructuring that doesn't provide any level of exhaustiveness checking that is very helpful in maintaining code under conditions of change.
935.
by platz 7y ago
> Since the early 2000s, functional programming has become more and more popular This is because pre-2000's, OO was particularly well-suited to desktop software and dominated that space, which also happened to be a space which occup
936.
by platz 7y ago
so, 103 years of productivity for the US?
937.
by platz 7y ago
Thanks! I agree minimal is best. SQLite's been excellent. Postgres wouldn't be hard to switch to in the future but I don't think I need it yet. My initial need was met by delegating archiving to http://archive.li
938.
by platz 7y ago
also, let's be honest - the kinds of folks running self hosted software are devs and techies, and no one in the open source self hosted space is feeding their family on these tools. In that context open source should be like a bazaar w
939.
by platz 7y ago
Plugging my self hosted web based bookmark manager as well https://github.com/jonschoning/espial I like the ingestion via bookmarklet method, as it's low user overhead; just does the job and gets out of your way.
940.
by platz 7y ago
It's to hard to do anything so lets do nothing.
941.
by platz 7y ago
> engineers now must fully understand the consequences of anything they log I don't think this is quite the dichotomy you make it out to be. So we can create optimizing compilers, but we can't figure out what to log? This seems
942.
by platz 7y ago
I really enjoyed this account of the technical aspects of LIGO The Technical Challenges of Measuring Gravitational Waves – Rana Adhikari of LIGO https://blog.ycombinator.com/the-technical-challenges-of-mea...
943.
by platz 7y ago
But the stock is going up now !
944.
by platz 7y ago
Right - I'm totally on board with the overarching goal of keeping the stack as simple as possible, but at the app level, for the best maintenance story, I would want types.
945.
by platz 7y ago
There is both the "interference pattern" on the target wall made by individual photons over time, which we can directly observe, and the interference of the photon's wavefunction with itself, which we cannot directly observe.
946.
by platz 7y ago
You've misunderstood my point.
947.
by platz 7y ago
Carroll postulates that all the necessary degrees of freedom are already just sitting there in hilbert space - it's only when the states become orthogonal to each other (e.g. "branching") that we no longer have access to them
948.
by platz 7y ago
I don't think we know enough to presume what was going on in the "initial state" of the universe, except perhaps that it was very low entropy.
949.
by platz 7y ago
I think this is the view that scientists if they are interested more in the task of prediction than anything else https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ka9KGqr5Wtw
950.
by platz 7y ago
Right, but in that case we never observe the wavefunction, the quantum state of the particle, or the particle interacting with itself. In that sense, the wavefunction predicts the outcome but it does not have to "real". It is rea
951.
by platz 7y ago
> The fact that we observe interference patterns shows that the wavefunctions are real. well, not quite - remember that what we actually observe for a given particular event is something that looks like particle that is localized in spac
952.
by platz 7y ago
Your usage of "many outcomes" is what may be causing contention/confusion for those looking for answers in what is described by the mathematical equations, and scientific theories. If you want to justify "many outcomes&
953.
by platz 7y ago
Fair enough - I'm not a physicist or read papers on physics. I'm just trying to re-tell the best version of the theories as I've understood them by steel-manning arguments laid out (by scientists that have some media exposur
954.
by platz 7y ago
If you agree on that math/science then this point you're adamant about whether it is or is not a "world" reduces to a semantics/ontology/philosophy question, which we're not going to get further clarity on
955.
by platz 7y ago
Ok - well then he and I meant different things.
956.
by platz 7y ago
He didn't say to re-add it as an axiom . He's pointing out that the "born rule" (or something that gives you probabilities in the way that you need to agree with experiment) can potentially "emerge" i.e. be re
957.
by platz 7y ago
The wavefunction is the thing that is in a state of quantum superposition. It all depends on whether you think the wavefunction describes the macroscopic world (MWI), or the wavefunction merely calculates amplitudes&probabilities for th
958.
by platz 7y ago
> the main difference is the difference in ontology Sure, I'm not sure how much Science has to say about ontology but I'm interested in the outcome.
959.
by platz 7y ago
> The main difference is that the MWI has trouble explaining the Born rule. To re-phrase, the claim in that article is that once MWI has done away with the Born rule, it has to deal with how the probabilities that we find in experiment a
960.
by platz 7y ago
That characterization of Woit does not appear quite accurate. Woit's claim may even be bolder, in that he claims that there is no functional difference between MWI and Copenhagen. > What strikes me when thinking about these two sup

More ›