seadan83

15 ms·

121.
by seadan83 1y ago
> Do you think the _process_ of making music is the important part, or the final sounds that are produced? It is both, for different reasons. Not caring for the process is the path of the mid-wit.
122.
by seadan83 1y ago
> How do you even defend against this in a terrorist use case? You can't, and you don't. That is why it is called terrorism. Safety and freedom are sometimes antagonistic goals. This is an example. Terrorism is defended against
123.
by seadan83 1y ago
Interesting point! I'd like to explore this a bit more. Would you mind going into a bit more specifics/details on why regular code review practice would become unworkable, like which specific part(s) of it?
124.
by seadan83 1y ago
Reviewing code is often slower than writing it. You don't have to be an exceptionally fast coder or slow reviewer for that to be true.
125.
by seadan83 1y ago
Indeed, instead of writing code to shave a Yak, we're now instead reviewing how the Yak was (most-shittily) shaved.
126.
by seadan83 1y ago
The phrasing was perhaps a bit odd. For a while, humans were better at Chess, until they weren't. OP is hypothesizing it will be a similar situation for programming. To boot, it was hard to believe for a long time that computers would
127.
by seadan83 1y ago
> It's like chess. Humans are better for now, they won't be forever This is not an obviously true statement. There needs to be proof that there are no limiting factors that are computationally impossible to overcome. It's
128.
by seadan83 1y ago
The focus on short term results could generally be true. Perhaps... generally nothing is true though of course. (1) consider how many stocks are delisted and/or go out of business. We might be thinking with survivorship bias. A cook go
129.
by seadan83 1y ago
Could you explicitly explain that second question, regarding how we would experience a large scale extinction event from a different timeline? I'm also curious about this assumption: "It's the assumption that in our world, a
130.
by seadan83 1y ago
> And indeed the natural and inevitable progression of this world line is a machine world, Would you mind clarifying your line of reasoning for suggesting this? Second: quoting wikipedia - "The many-worlds interpretation implies th
131.
by seadan83 1y ago
Thinking about this a bit more.. I think I can refute your statement that "coding is math" and not "coding uses math". I'm sorry the conversation got so caught up on pedantics. Previously I would have quite readily
132.
by seadan83 1y ago
A better analogy is if someone got upset that someone else said "the set of natural numbers is the set of real numbers." One is a subset of course, and when that is highlighted, the response is "yeah, by 'is', I act
133.
by seadan83 1y ago
I think this is the author's point. The ability to write short and concisely is a skill. So goes the saying: "If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter." Using LLMs to do that shortening is potentially hinderi
134.
by seadan83 1y ago
> But then again, isn't a good portion of this thread non-mathematicians arguing about what math is? No, a good chunk is clarification of "WTF do you mean?" The abstract arguing I suspect we all find to not be interesting
135.
by seadan83 1y ago
> We were using English to communicate and English doesn't have the strict rules of mathematics. Agree. > He's right, "is" maps to "equivalent" but he's also wrong because "is" also maps t
136.
by seadan83 1y ago
I'm reacting to: "Math is language. 'Everything' is language. Language is the image of reality." There are other discussions which say: - Math is a subset of language, surely - It's easily argued that languages
137.
by seadan83 1y ago
"silk is cloth" is not true except for the colloquial interpretation that infers "silk can sometimes be a cloth". Given the clarifications, it seems the OP is intending to say it's an exact equality and not a collo
138.
by seadan83 1y ago
The equality relationship is symmetric, "For every a and b, if a = b, then b = a" [1]. This holds for the negation as well. Or, "Properties of Equality... The [equality] relation must also be symmetric. If two terms refer to
139.
by seadan83 1y ago
Just trying to answer a question: >> Some of the comments pointed out that this is hostile behaviour for people roaming as well > I’m sorry how is this related to roaming?
140.
by seadan83 1y ago
MOUNTAIN valleys, need to get WAY higher up than the top of the house.
141.
by seadan83 1y ago
A lot of US carriers charge per SMS when roaming (as if it were 2006).
142.
by seadan83 1y ago
The way I'm responding I'd more characterize as: "wait, if what you are saying is true, then this other thing should be true too, but it does not seem to be. That would indicate what you are saying is not true." In anoth
143.
by seadan83 1y ago
I'd agree code is usually governed by mathematics, not defined by it though. Goes back to this ridiculous proposition: - Cashier: You mean, I used math to give you change? - Customer: No, giving change doesn't use math, it IS math
144.
by seadan83 1y ago
AFAIK it would be more fitting to say it is of little comfort to a factory worker who lost their job, that there are now 1.5 more jobs, better jobs, now available to other people. The reason for AFAIK, my understanding is it is more common
145.
by seadan83 1y ago
Not a question of luddites. Example, coal in the US became heavily automated - the workers did not all just find new jobs. Industry shifts don't mean the old workers become the new workers. People do get left behind, and potentially en
146.
by seadan83 1y ago
Smooth is fast, slow is smooth, so slow is fast. You're applying that to the restaurant as a whole though, which makes human or robotic immaterial. The saying I do believe has a difference between robots and humans. The idea largely be
147.
by seadan83 1y ago
It's almost the argument of programming vs computer science coming out here. This is math: {x | x.id = 1} OTOH, a SQL query is a SQL query. This thread is hilarious though. It's like - Cashier: here is your change. - Customer: you
148.
by seadan83 1y ago
Very cool how the last sentence you leave off with always has to be a personal attack. It's breaking the rules of the discussion, irrelevant. Stop trying to win points. Let's focus on the substance. > This appears to be a link
149.
by seadan83 1y ago
> I understand you have strong opinions, I just don't understand why. As someone that is "on the other side of the fence", and getting flamed for it, maybe I can shed some light since I have the other perspective as well.
150.
by seadan83 1y ago
> A common use of be is to express set membership rather than identity Google for "logical "is a" vs logical "is"". Google AI answers this: > "is" typically represents an equality relation Rest

More ›