tux1968

4 ms·

31.
by tux1968 8mo ago
You bought the device as delivered. They built it in the best way they know how. If you don't like it you're free to try to change it. But they're under no obligation to make it easy for you. If the light switch you bought
32.
by tux1968 8mo ago
Yes, and it should be 100% legal for you to hack it. Get the soldering iron out, and the debugger, and alter it to your hearts content. You bought it, you own it. But the supplier should be under no obligation to make any of that easy fo
33.
by tux1968 8mo ago
I want maximum freedom, for everyone. That includes developers. We should be free to produce the software as we see fit. If that means we think that our users are best served by having devices that are locked down against scammers etc, th
34.
by tux1968 8mo ago
No, I don't think you have the inerhent right to install any apk you desire, if their OS is designed to prohibit it. You should be free to try to alter their OS any way you want, but they should not have to make it easy. And the argume
35.
by tux1968 8mo ago
> IMO the way this should work is that Google can make their software however they want provided they don't do anything to stop me from changing it to work the way I want. That's exactly how it is. You're free to get your
36.
by tux1968 8mo ago
Yes, that is a real problem. But it doesn't justify arguing uncritically or unrealistically in other areas. I think people should be free to do anything they want with their own devices. They should be able to install any software t
37.
by tux1968 8mo ago
Of course it's your phone, but the whole point of using Android is that it makes a lot of choices for you. It forces a billion things on you, and this is really no different than any of the others. Everything from UI colors, to the w
38.
by tux1968 8mo ago
Force pushing doesn't actually remove anything from the remote repository, only changes some references for which commits the branches point to. Plus, any forks on github will be completely unaffected. It's not perfect, since Gi
39.
by tux1968 8mo ago
Why not? It's their operating system, and they're trying to balance quite a few competing priorities. Scammers are not a threat to dismiss out of hand (i've had family who were victims). For it to be truly considered open s
40.
by tux1968 8mo ago
Maybe i'm misunderstanding your point, but human's have pretty abysmal data efficiency, too. We have to use tools for everything... ledgers, spreadsheets, data-bases, etc. It'll be the same for an AGI, there won't be a
41.
by tux1968 8mo ago
I think the point the poster was making, is that there is an asterisk beside Gukesh and Liren's world champ status. Nobody really thinks they're the actual world-champ, regardless of what FIDE says. FIDE failed to attract the be
42.
by tux1968 8mo ago
No, you're failing to acknowledge that your own assertion that intelligence can't be based on a non-dynamic, non-learning technology is just wrong. And not only wrong, proof to the contrary, is demonstrated by your very own exist
43.
by tux1968 8mo ago
You're ignoring the point. The individual atoms of YOUR body do not learn. They do not respond to experience. You categorically stated that any system built on such components can not demonstrate intelligence. You need to think lo
44.
by tux1968 8mo ago
The other day I slammed the brakes at a green light, because I could hear sirens approaching -- even though the buildings on the corner prevented any view of the approaching fire trucks or their flashing lights. Do Teslas not have this ab
45.
by tux1968 8mo ago
The atoms of your body are not dynamic structures, they do not reengineer or reconfigure themselves in response to success/failure or rules discovery. So by your own logic, you can not be intelligent, because your body is running on a
46.
by tux1968 8mo ago
You can play that game with any argument. "Consciousness" is just an abstraction, not the reality, which makes people who desperately want humans to be special, attribute it to something beyond reach of any other part of reality
47.
by tux1968 8mo ago
> An algorithm is an algorithm. A computer is a computer. These things matter. Sure. But we're allowed to notice abstractions that are similar between these things. Unless you believe that logic and "thinking" are someho
48.
by tux1968 8mo ago
I think the distinction without a difference is a tool being deterministic or not. Fundamentally, its nature doesn't matter, if in actual practice it outperforms everything else.
49.
by tux1968 8mo ago
I'm not sure pure determinism is actually a desirable goal. I mean, if you ask the best programmer in the world the same question every day, you're likely to eventually get a new answer at some point. But if you ask him, or I as
50.
by tux1968 8mo ago
People keep trotting this argument out. But a band saw is not deterministic either, it can snap in the middle of a cut and destroy what you're working on. The point is, we only treat it like it's deterministic, because most of t
51.
by tux1968 8mo ago
You're not wrong. But your same objection was made against compilers. That they are opaque, have differences from one to another, and can introduce bugs, they're not actually deterministic if you upgrade the compiler, etc. They
52.
by tux1968 8mo ago
For anyone else that didn't recognize this reference, it's also known as the "Ballmer Peak": https://xkcd.com/323/
53.
by tux1968 8mo ago
I used the future tense. Maybe it will be one hundred years from now, who knows; but the main point still stands. It would just be nice to move the conversation beyond "but I enjoy coding!".
54.
by tux1968 8mo ago
It seems like you're doing a lot of work to miss the actual point. Focusing on the minutiae of the analogy is a distraction from the over arching and obvious point. It has nothing to do with how you feel , it has to do with how you
55.
by tux1968 8mo ago
Nobody is trying to talk anyone out of their hobby or artisanal creativeness. A lot of people enjoy walking, even after the invention of the automobile. There's nothing wrong with that, there are even times when it's the much mo
56.
by tux1968 8mo ago
Maybe you disagree with it, but it seems like a pretty straightforward argument: A lot of us dismiss AI because "it can't be trusted to do as good a job as me". The OP is arguing that someone, who can do better than most of
57.
by tux1968 9mo ago
This is a really well done talk, with a very interesting peek into how the port is going. But beyond that, it's also a great example of how to give a technical talk in general, walking the line between bringing the uninitiated along,
58.
39C3 – Asahi Linux – Porting Linux to Apple Silicon – Sven Peter(youtube.com)
3 points by tux1968 9mo ago|1 comments
59.
by tux1968 10mo ago
Thanks for sharing this one. There's so many brilliant and funny little vignettes in this piece. I'm amazed at what some people are able to do, so far outside anything I could dream about creating.
60.
by tux1968 10mo ago
I'm sure you're being honest about your intent, but a glancing read of your previous comment sounded categorical, to my ear at least, "And they've all been proven false."

More ›