rhelz

40 ms·

601.
by rhelz 3y ago
> Perhaps this comment was meant as a joke Nope, not a joke. As you say, this is just the application of parsing technology to a tokenized stream of input events. its super-useful in creating state machines to do parsing---and it can be
602.
by rhelz 3y ago
#1 isn't an issue unique to paying peer reviewers. We've learned how to negotiate such hazards. #2 Seems like a team who wants their paper published would be super-helpful to the reviewers and replicators....why wouldn't the
603.
by rhelz 3y ago
> Your other comment didn't say who might be paying reviewers. In the parent comment to this thread, I talk about this. My proposal is that when a researcher writes up the grant to get their research funded, they should estimate ho
604.
by rhelz 3y ago
Guys....what are the instructions? The on-chip memory they are talking about is essentially...a big register set. So we have load from main memory into registers, store from registers into main memory, multiply matrices--source and dest a
605.
by rhelz 3y ago
Quote from the OP: "The TPU v1 uses a CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer) design with around only about 20 instructions." chuckle CISC/RISC has gone from astute observation, to research program, to revolutionary techn
606.
by rhelz 3y ago
Your concerns are valid, and I think that my proposal of paying reviewers and replicators addresses them all. > It's not obvious that a journal is fundamentally better at organizing unpaid voluntary reviewers compared to a preprint
607.
by rhelz 3y ago
Well, if you are paying somebody to do something, you gain a lot of leverage: 1. You can negotiate a due date. No more waiting for years before the journal's reviewers actually review your paper. 2. You can negotiate a set of delive
608.
by rhelz 3y ago
> I wouldn't say peer review is useless, I think it did improve papers I wrote a little Let's get back to basics here. What is the whole point of doing things scientifically in the first place? I.e. what is so special about t
609.
by rhelz 3y ago
> If you believe in meta-analysis, which you should, I view meta-analysis as being like those mortgage-backed securities which crashed the world back in 2008. I mean, yeah, theoretically, a bond whose yield is a weighted average of mor
610.
by rhelz 3y ago
The US will never come to the defense of Taiwan. The US and China will never go to war with each other. Nuclear powers do not fight each other directly, they do it through proxies, like we are doing with Ukraine vs. Russia. The U.S. migh
611.
by rhelz 3y ago
Theres a few differences between Intel and Google here. The first two points are from Peter Thiel: 1. Google really didn't know what to do with its excess money, which was why it was just stockpiling it and not using it to invest in
612.
by rhelz 3y ago
Its easy to forget--but we are the many; they are the few. And Trump hasn't quite succeeded in rendering our votes moot. Capital owners can only control congress by persuading us that we should let them. I believe its a very goo
613.
by rhelz 3y ago
> “paper slicing” I'm glad we agree that paper slicing is also plaguing academia. When I was a grad student, it bugged me to no end that those guys at Stanford were out-publishing me--because they got enough results for 1.5 papers
614.
by rhelz 3y ago
I propose to supply those incentives—-pay for good reviewer and replicators. If you want something done, you gotta pay for it. We can’t just rely on volunteers.
615.
by rhelz 3y ago
A valid concern, but what is driving this red-queen race is that you are competing with people who cheat. If you’ve got one really solid paper published, but your competitor fraudulently published 10, it’s real tempting to fraud a few pape
616.
by rhelz 3y ago
Science is very deep; I’m sure that to replicate some studies it would cost as much as performing the original study did. But whether it’s $10k or $100k, we really should provide the funds to do it. Expensive? Yeah, but not as expensive fu
617.
by rhelz 3y ago
> If you believe replicability is central to science. I do believe that, but it doesn’t matter what anybody believes, replicatable experiments and results, which peers can review and agree on, are the soul of science. Without that it’s n
618.
by rhelz 3y ago
chuckle recall, a paper is given to 3 or 4 reviewers. No need for hierarchies of reviewers; it’s more like a jury; if all the reviewers more or less come to the same conclusion we can have a high confidence that the decision is the corre
619.
by rhelz 3y ago
Whether or not your papers pass peer review—-and which journals it is published in—are important criteria for hiring, tenure, whether your grants are funded, etc. If you get rid of peer review, it’s not science. It’s just a vanity press.
620.
by rhelz 3y ago
One of my profs once remarked, "All of science is done on a volunteer basis." He was talking about peer review, which--as crucial as it is--is not something you get paid for. Writing a review--a good review--is 1) hard work, 2) c
621.
by rhelz 3y ago
Thanks for the link, exactly the kind of thing I was talking about.
622.
by rhelz 3y ago
Yeah, but what if we didn't do that? I.e. when we are reading from memory, we treat it as part of the tokenized input stream, and whatever we are writing to memory is just the transformed output of the state machine. This way, the
623.
by rhelz 3y ago
We actually have a great tool to manage state, but nobody seems to have used it to its full potential: regular expressions. Imagine your program is a big state machine, and inputs and other events are making it transition from one state to
624.
by rhelz 3y ago
Alright, fess up, this is a post from a bot!
625.
by rhelz 3y ago
Ok, thanks for clarifying. But again, we are so used to dealing with ambiguity that we don't even notice it. It looks like the inputs/outputs are really nailed down....but still, it is ambiguous in countless ways. For example,
626.
by rhelz 3y ago
> Raising taxes in an inflationary environment is scarier than raising taxes in a deflationary environment. I know it can be scary, but, we are going to have to muster the courage to try unorthodox things--like actually paying the bills.
627.
by rhelz 3y ago
> your examples may not representative of younger generations Well, first of all, let me heartily agree with you that the young adults are being and have been being screwed for about 20 years now. But remember in 2008, when middle aged a
628.
by rhelz 3y ago
> The people with that kind of money don't have borders restricting them. Anybody who would leave a country which gave them so much--just so they could take EVEN MORE from it--is somebody I don't want voting in my elections any
629.
by rhelz 3y ago
I didn't quite understand that point, can you rephrase? I mean, yeah, things like specs for computer languages do define a space for ambiguity, but that space is ambiguous just the same.
630.
by rhelz 3y ago
> What if someone in the early church had seen apostolic miracles and talked to an eyewitness of the resurrected Jesus? If you saw somebody walking around healing people, and he claimed that all known religions were false, and you should

More ›