redhat-reallyp

5 ms·

1.
by redhat-reallyp 13y ago
> Git is similar, except there is no competition/competitor there to befuddle you. You haven't met some of the developers on my team.
2.
by redhat-reallyp 13y ago
> poof magic we have simple mathematical rules on which the universe runs I'm not arguing against the idea that the universe might be described by simple mathematical rules - after all, we have a fair amount of evidence that it
3.
by redhat-reallyp 13y ago
> It's the simplest hypothesis to date that I know of. Therefore, I assign at least a non trivial probability to it. I don't think it's simple at all. What is the role of "mathematics" in the conjecture - what
4.
by redhat-reallyp 13y ago
You hit the nail on the head. The real issue is that the force is not considered fundamental , because it is explained by some other model such as spacetime curvature.
5.
by redhat-reallyp 13y ago
At https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6406551 I'm having a reasoned discussion with someone who responded more substantively to what I wrote. Your petty sniping is not reasoned discussion.
6.
by redhat-reallyp 13y ago
> That was a serious hypothesis before this. Heard about Tegmark's level IV multiverse? Of course, I love Tegmark's speculative work. But that's all it is, speculative. It's like reading science fiction, one shoul
7.
by redhat-reallyp 13y ago
"Illusion" is a misleading way to put it. We experience gravity as a force - we can measure it with devices designed to measure forces. It's not an illusion. However, the model of gravity as a force between massive objects
8.
by redhat-reallyp 13y ago
You're comparing me to the authors of the work? My misunderstanding then, I thought you were comparing my take to that of other commenters. "try to be specific" I did post specifics, include a link to an example of the issue
9.
by redhat-reallyp 13y ago
Perhaps you missed the part of my very short comment where I wrote "I'm not dismissing that the work could have value, but the article makes claims that go far beyond anything that's been demonstrated." You might want to
10.
by redhat-reallyp 13y ago
"Quite a few smart people seem excited by it" Why aren't you asking them for their qualifications, then? Serious question, think about what your choice implies. Is it that "you want to believe", perhaps? You don&#
11.
by redhat-reallyp 13y ago
I'm not questioning whether the work has value, but the article is hyping it way beyond justification.
12.
by redhat-reallyp 13y ago
"it contains signs of a genuine conceptual breakthrough." It contains claims of such signs, which seems to be the point of this fluff piece. Alarm bells should go off when you read statements like this: "...giving up space an
13.
by redhat-reallyp 13y ago
"without qualification of their exact experience "how often" it is really hard to tell the bias in that statement wouldn't you agree?" No, because many people have experience which contradicts theirs, and they don&#
14.
by redhat-reallyp 13y ago
This is a content-free article. It boils down to "we've committed to CentOS, so that's what we prefer to use." The claim that "in our experience, [Debian/Ubuntu] are not nearly as stable or trouble-free as RHE