simondedalus

10 ms·

31.
by simondedalus 9y ago
you can't be neutral on a moving train.
32.
by simondedalus 9y ago
carlsen (like all super grandmasters) would happily concede that he can't beat 3000+ engines most of the time. i don't know if chess commentators appreciate what this means about chess engines and the fundamental principles of ch
33.
by simondedalus 10y ago
they like the absence of all of gnome's chrome and the smooth animations and transitions. me, i like gnome 3 and unity. all told i think this is really good news from canonical, for wayland, for gnome, for desktop linux in general, et
34.
by simondedalus 10y ago
very good. dualism and pessimism particularly funny. like the overall design too.
35.
by simondedalus 10y ago
obviously decades of security advisories means it's not easy. what in the world does 'easy' mean in your current usage? surely "tons of failures" is a better indicator of difficulty than "it feels easy to me
36.
by simondedalus 10y ago
I know that the response I'm about to give makes a statement that is not falsifiable and very much has the form of "I can cart this out and think I'm right no matter WHAT you respond," but I still feel compelled to say..
37.
by simondedalus 10y ago
To be fair, the value of the features you cite are very dependent on the size of the team and the type of work being done. If you're throwing tons of engineers, tests, and money at something--think aircraft or whatever--you're no
38.
by simondedalus 10y ago
Totally agree, DNS and Bind and Essential System Administration alone are completely worth it if you're at all interested in (using) Unix-like systems. As for being dated, I think simply reading (and understanding) Essential Syste
39.
by simondedalus 10y ago
No I totally use it for tiling as well; I just meant that the "too much chrome" complaint about gnome3 can be overcome. And while not as good as real tiling, keyboard shortcuts to the various snapped positions go a long way for th
40.
by simondedalus 10y ago
indeed, the early wittgenstein thinks that the world is must be one of those things we must pass over in silence, while how the world is is exactly the kind of thing about which we can talk and reason. the later wittgenstein (still?) th
41.
by simondedalus 10y ago
yeah, i got used to gnome3 during a redhat class, and subsequently on a default kali install for its own particular purpose, and i don't mind it at all. the alignment is good, and when you want to get rid of all the border stuff you c
42.
by simondedalus 10y ago
screenshot link errors out (owner of website doesn't allow hotlinking to that resource)
43.
by simondedalus 10y ago
not to mention that i've yet to have as bug-free an experience on elementary as i have on vanilla ubuntu, or opensuse with kde, or a really basic arch + i3 install, or kali with gnome 3, or (the list goes on). the unearned appreciation
44.
by simondedalus 10y ago
As usual, this article makes me think of Wittgenstein, who would probably say, "I agree with everything you're saying, except the word 'strange'." The content is interesting, definitely, but you could save some time
45.
by simondedalus 10y ago
The problem is that Gödel builds self-reference. It's not like Peano arithmetic has recursion or self-reference operators. To put it another way, in order to disqualify self-reference, you would need to employ a higher order proof s
46.
by simondedalus 10y ago
But doesn't the constant Gödel reference push people, exactly, to work toward effective cheats? Imagine if the people putting in effort to make real systems instead spent their time trying to create the self-verifying prover.
47.
by simondedalus 10y ago
I understand the frustration, but the Gödel objection will always be raised as long as someone asks for a prover that can prove itself correct (read "proves false statements or fails to prove true statements," which just is consis
48.
by simondedalus 10y ago
I don't mean to be rude, but this objection only seems handwave-y if you don't understand Gödel's proofs (common), or you have some refutation of them (obviously uncommon, but definitely interesting). This is a good not-too-t
49.
by simondedalus 10y ago
Gödel proved that we will never get such a prover: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_... Particularly, he proved that it is impossible for a formal system to prove its own consistency.
50.
by simondedalus 10y ago
why is that clear? the post to which you responded notes that piracy didn't hurt PS2. why should it hurt dreamcast? but more importantly, suppose it did hurt dreamcast. wmil already said that. if you're convinced that this is
51.
by simondedalus 10y ago
You would only not be able to map higher order functions to Gödel codes if it is not the case that for some n, f(n) outputs but does not determine m. I'm far from the most knowledgeable programmer in the world... but I do know that s
52.
by simondedalus 10y ago
Whether or not you can map everything in the higher order language to the nat -> nat one is what's at issue, not the reverse. For an analogy, you can map all the natural numbers to real numbers. This proves just about nothing. Tha
53.
by simondedalus 10y ago
that depends on your opinions regarding free software. people who support the GPL would probably call BSD/MIT less free, because the software is "free, for now," or "free, for me." that might not be good enough fo
54.
by simondedalus 10y ago
it would have been absurd to write that toolchain with a "kind of free" license. why would RMS bother? it's not like he didn't have access to existing software. i'm guessing you think that's just "incide
55.
by simondedalus 10y ago
if you read the thread, he's plainly referring to the fact that he missed a very natural reading of his sentence (he thought it was clear he meant "we'll probably change things during this contest," but the sentence real
56.
by simondedalus 10y ago
this article commits the same error that much of analytic philosophy does: it asks how something observable could be possible, and when it doesn't find a good answer, it suggests that the thing to be explained actually is impossible. i
57.
by simondedalus 10y ago
spending $1m to get into a 5c isn't exactly a PR disaster for apple.
58.
by simondedalus 10y ago
that's debatable, once you appreciate the point about having a reason to do something. calculation itself really only exists with purpose. it's a thing to do if you have a reason to do it. of course, these kinds of things too se
59.
by simondedalus 10y ago
i'm not saying that microsoft is fundamentally evil, but don't you think it's problematic that the premise "business X is evil" is necessarily "dogmatic" or "not conducive to discussion"? i mean
60.
by simondedalus 10y ago
it also imports concepts like "authenticity" that are extrinsic to the simulation. which is absurd.

More ›