staunton

52 ms·

871.
by staunton 4y ago
This paper criticizes renormalization as illegitimate but completely fails to mention the interpretation of renormalization that was given by Wilson and others (see "renormalization group" for details).
872.
by staunton 4y ago
Also, a libel case does not work when the accusation is true. In this case, it depends on what a "strong" signal is. That it is a signal is quite obvious and has been shown (as a general principle) in meta-studies looking at repli
873.
by staunton 4y ago
> the music just won't happen, even if you're Mozart. Thousands of self-taught musicians, many of them famous, beg to differ. Not that this is relevant to the discussion but the example seems flawed.
874.
by staunton 4y ago
Not that many developers even try writing UB-free C (or C++), or want to. Almost always the UB works (might not be portable, might break with a future compiler...) but im those cases they just debug the issues (or blame the compiler or don&
875.
by staunton 4y ago
> What it inevitably leads to is denial, coverup, unwillingness to innovate ... and finally adoption of the required methods and reaching required standards, like countless cases of successful regulation since times immemorial. How do yo
876.
by staunton 4y ago
The way I see it is as expanding the high-level-low-level spectrum of programing tools towards the high end. In very large-scale projects that have many levels of complexity, I would argue "probabilistic software" is already a rea
877.
by staunton 4y ago
That's an interesting difference but I'm not convinced it's valid. Perhaps you can explain what you mean in more detail? Let's say the software is good enough if it does the right thing 99.9% of the time it is used. I ta
878.
by staunton 4y ago
Which has almost never been used to build software anyone ever used... That might be changing very slowly
879.
by staunton 4y ago
My dream game: First person shooter (UT style) in a non-Euclidian space (like in Manifold Garden)...
880.
by staunton 4y ago
All software is riddled with errors and for most purposes that's fine. Any developer, stakeholder, whatever, who thinks otherwise is living in a parallel universe. It may be possible in the future to have "for all practical purpos
881.
by staunton 4y ago
Some companies stick to ANSI-C and use a compiler binary from the 90s because new things are scary™. So what exactly does that tell us?
882.
by staunton 4y ago
I wonder, it shouldn't be too hard to make a bot that automatically links to all previous discussions on each topic that's submitted...
883.
by staunton 4y ago
The vast majority of businesses choose speed over security and avoid investing in security since they can offload the cost of incidents to their users. One of the main reasons such "more secure tools" projects are interesting for
884.
by staunton 4y ago
In "reality", there is no such thing as an electron that has some mass. It's leaky abstractions and approximations all the way down. If we had a "complete" theory of physics, it would still be the same situation for
885.
by staunton 4y ago
I for one think it's absolutely hilarious. We're spending billions of dollars to automate internet trolling. Of course, we hope that automated high-quality trolling is the first step to useful AI, which is probably true and thus w
886.
by staunton 4y ago
That makes a lot of sense though, to the point of being tautological. When something is a crisis, i.e. an urgent problem, you deal with it. If it's not urgent, it can wait. The fact that it would very often be "cheaper" or mo
887.
by staunton 4y ago
The problem is that there is no reason to believe the war would stop even if Ukraine managed to push all Russian troops from their territory (with or without Crimea), which is quite unlikely in the first place. In fact, I've yet to hea
888.
by staunton 4y ago
Which again is an opinion on the source and does not mention the content in any way. I must conclude that you're not interested in an object level discussion about the topic at hand.
889.
by staunton 4y ago
> It would be better if they were honest about the cause. Which is what? What should they say about it?
890.
by staunton 4y ago
It was an opinion on the source, not on what it says. Your second comment still doesn't adress any claims of the article, it just attributes malicious intent to it without mentioning what makes you think that. The claim is that while r
891.
by staunton 4y ago
Any opinions on the actual article?
892.
by staunton 4y ago
Spain has an absurd timezone though
893.
by staunton 4y ago
> All productivity numbers are per hour which numbers? GP was talking about numbers of companies and the article is pretty low on data either way. In any case, the points I was trying to make were: there are eventually diminishing return
894.
by staunton 4y ago
Which was exactly my point: you can't argue that "wide access to biotechnology will do no harm, after all, people haven't started building nukes in their back yard".
895.
by staunton 4y ago
I'm always puzzled why the basic underlying assumption in this context is "we should have limitless exponential growth in productivity". For millennia, there was barely any growth at all and the very concept of progress was d
896.
by staunton 4y ago
... where "build system" means a bunch of preprocessor macros, at which point you just use the oldest version of everything available and never update anything that works.
897.
by staunton 4y ago
There's a difference. Building a nuke is actually really easy [1]. The hard part is getting and enriching uranium. For the bio stuff, you only need some lab equipment, where there's no reason why it wouldn't get really cheap
898.
by staunton 4y ago
The number to compare to would be the fraction of "readers" who actually read (most of) the article. I have a hunch it's also a small fraction.
899.
by staunton 4y ago
> they aren't agents I think for security purposes they should be treated as agents. If a computer program can access the internet (even just individual people) and write whatever it does without explicit checkable restrictions, tha
900.
by staunton 4y ago
I've been part of numerous human conversations where the same thing was happening. It's more a sign of people's (agent's?) views being aligned than anything else. Unless you have an implied discussion culture demanding y

More ›