tsimionescu

580 ms·

3781.
by tsimionescu 3y ago
I was mainly trying to point out that the mathematical term "computation" is not limited to deterministic computers. Since the GP was mentioning computable functions as something requiring determinism, I believe they were also tal
3782.
by tsimionescu 3y ago
> (Not talking about the dumb Christian idea "You are already forgiven no matter what because someone is killed 2 millenia ago!" here.) Even though I'm an atheist, this is quite an ignorant take on Christian beliefs. In Ch
3783.
by tsimionescu 3y ago
I think fascism is a bad term to use here, totalitarianism or thought-policing is more what you mean. Fascism refers to specific political beliefs including totalitarianism plus some form of cultural supremacy (typically racism, but it can
3784.
by tsimionescu 3y ago
Replied elsewhere, but Norton's dome has no real implications for classical mechanics as a full physical theory. It goes away as soon as you add the idea that matter is composed of fixed shape atoms, without even making any assumptions
3785.
by tsimionescu 3y ago
Halting has little to do with determinism. Our physical computers are also decidedly undeterministic, at least for practical purposes: TLS itself greatly relies on an RNG for example.
3786.
by tsimionescu 3y ago
One of the most famous problems in computer science, P vs NP, is about non-deterministic computation. So no, computation does not require determinism - there are in fact plenty of models of non-deterministic computation. There are even mode
3787.
by tsimionescu 3y ago
Note that this is not an actual physical experiment - it only works with an infinitely accurate and smooth shape of the dome, which contradicts all of the models of how matter exists at least since the ancient greeks. Any dome made up of at
3788.
by tsimionescu 3y ago
That only matters if you assume infinite measurement accuracy, and the scientific method has never assumed that. Even if we assume the world is 100% fully deterministic, as long as our measurements are not 100% accurate we will have some
3789.
by tsimionescu 3y ago
A non-deterministic universe can have two kinds of events: caused events, and random events. That is, an event can simply happen, but it can also be caused by another event. For example, a ball could start moving on a pool table all on its
3790.
by tsimionescu 3y ago
The many-worlds interpretation isn't deducible from just the Schrödinger equation. The Schrödinger equation roughly predicts that if you put two detectors at the two possible positions where a light beam can go after a beam splitter, a
3791.
by tsimionescu 3y ago
You absolutely can. It will probably be thrown out, just like most counts in this case.
3792.
by tsimionescu 3y ago
But in the USA, anyone can be sued for anything. This is how the system is designed. I could sue you for posting this comment and claim that it's defamatory to the Pope, and I would get my (hopefully extremely brief) day in court.
3793.
by tsimionescu 3y ago
Sure, but the point stands that the original poster actually cited ChatGPT as their research, which is where all the reactions cam from. They didn't say "I found these sources from ChatGPT", they just gave us a ChatGPT log as
3794.
by tsimionescu 3y ago
Where does this idea that fusion == infinite energy come from? Nothing could be further from the truth, all fusion power plant designs have a very fixed amount of power they can generate (limited by the size of the reactor), and the costs t
3795.
by tsimionescu 3y ago
How would you know if the chat is "wholly correct factually", unless you look at other spurces? It is not uncommon for even it's citations to simply not exist. Wikipedia sometimes has similar problems, but it has generally go
3796.
by tsimionescu 3y ago
> Forth and Lisp? :) Not having keywords at all is cheating :) Or, for Common Lisp at least, perhaps we can say that (,), #, ;, ", `,', :, commas, whitespace, and numbers are actually the keywords, since most other ASCII chars
3797.
by tsimionescu 3y ago
Is there any programming language which doesn't have this property? All of the mainstream ones certainly use bare words as both keywords and identifiers, and there can sometimes be ambiguity. Most don't even have a solution like q
3798.
by tsimionescu 3y ago
Types and units are very different concepts. In fact it's quite hard to formalize the way units are used in everyday physics. For example, what is the type of the / operation such that 4m/2s = 2m/s, but also 4kg/2kg
3799.
by tsimionescu 3y ago
`a.b` is always valid syntax, there's no way to know if it is a valid C instruction until you resolve the types of a and b. Assigning it valid semantics at that point is exactly as easy as assigning it error semantics. And no, this wou
3800.
by tsimionescu 3y ago
First of all, there is no way this works reliably for anything but the first hop. There is no way for a router to send a packet to you in a way where you can reply to that router unless you are connected directly to it, unless all ISP route
3801.
by tsimionescu 3y ago
This proposal only works if the packets are readable by every intermediate router. Or are you suggesting that you establish a TLS session with every router between you and the attacker?
3802.
by tsimionescu 3y ago
The comment lists three negative things as "the reason we needed HTTP/2". I don't even see how you could read it other than implying that HTTP/2 was not actually necessary.
3803.
by tsimionescu 3y ago
No one here is proposing implicit dereferencing (everywhere), the proposal is just to make the syntax `pointer.field` have the exact same meaning that `pointer->field` has in C today. In all other places, the current syntax and semantics
3804.
by tsimionescu 3y ago
It's not very hard to send packets with a fake source IP, especially if you don't care about the reply.
3805.
by tsimionescu 3y ago
So I can deny service to your site with a single packet, instead of having to bother with establishing a whole botnet? The current botnet customers would be the first to advocate for this new protocol!
3806.
by tsimionescu 3y ago
What do you think it meant before that?
3807.
by tsimionescu 3y ago
I believe GP means that "a.b" should be enough for pointers as well, you don't need "a->b" or "(*a).b". It's not like pointers can have fields in C, so the meaning would have been unambiguous.
3808.
by tsimionescu 3y ago
You're asking me to compare an actual speech pattern of actual people with actors portraying a stereotype... Either way, it sounds like you hate a particular attitude which may be meant to convey a certain kind of ironic detachment, ju
3809.
by tsimionescu 3y ago
You can of course find anything annoying. But you said that it's annoying that people choose to do this, and you called speaking without vocal fry "speaking normally", implying that it's somehow wrong/abnormal and t
3810.
by tsimionescu 3y ago
> I think the most annoying thing is that it's clear it's being done on purpose for some reason. I know she can talk normally and I know I can talk like her, so why is she choosing to talk like that? This is like complaining so

More ›