xscott

11 ms·

151.
by xscott 1y ago
> the parties move their positions such that they divide the votes between themselves as evenly as possible That's something I'd like to understand better... Why would they TRY to divide evenly? Where's the party that ta
152.
by xscott 1y ago
That's possibly short sighted. I have a friend who is very rude and condescending in his LLM conversations - it's just a machine, after all. However he also complains that it frequently becomes uncooperative at a certain point,
153.
by xscott 1y ago
Seconded on operator overloading, but being restricted to the limited set of "primitive" (value) types is horrible too. Complex numbers are table stakes. The idea that I need to dynamically allocate an object holding two floats
154.
by xscott 1y ago
> If we’re not going to get direct access to the DOM, can we at least get the ability to just list the JS functions that our wasm will call? You mean like a list of JS functions that are imported into the Wasm binary? This has been ther
155.
by xscott 1y ago
> "under what operation?" You could treat the semicolon as an operator, and just like multiplication over matrices, it's only commutative for a subset of the general type.
156.
by xscott 1y ago
I don't see why Intel couldn't make high end PCI cards that do super fast matrix multiplications and activation functions. Glue that together with a C-API and Python bindings. For all the interesting concepts in CUDA, it seems li
157.
by xscott 1y ago
Yes, and the nice thing about doing it with immutability is you can still have recursive types to build linked lists, trees, and/or dags. From there you can build hash-array-mapped-tries, finger-trees, and so on, giving you friendly d
158.
by xscott 1y ago
They tried this with Itanium and got beaten up constantly about how legacy performance was bad. Personally, I agree with you, but the market isn't rational. This paved the way for AMD to eat some of their lunch by making a "comp
159.
by xscott 2y ago
Yeah, I'm sure there are some holes (poor attempt at a pun), but you already know you can get arbitrarily close to whatever bound with rationals, much less computables, so it seems like someone better educated than me could shore that
160.
by xscott 2y ago
> If you want to argue that one could derive a theory of physics etc. that doesn't rely on the real numbers that's one thing. That wasn't my original intent, but I think it's a legitimate stance. The Reals are bizarr
161.
by xscott 2y ago
No, all the numbers most anyone actually uses are computable, and it'd say something weird about determinism if they weren't. The word "need" was carrying some weight, as in necessary vs sufficient.
162.
by xscott 2y ago
I should've been more clear. The Reals are very unsettling because there are supposed to be so many of them, but nobody has used, named, or described more than a few which aren't computable. They are angels dancing on a pin whic
163.
by xscott 2y ago
Other than Chaitin's constant(s), name a few that aren't computable.
164.
by xscott 2y ago
> The reals that are indescribable are truly weird [...] Well, I appreciate your patience. I'm certain I won't find a hole in any of your arguments or the conventional wisdom, but the Reals outside of the Computables (or Defin
165.
by xscott 2y ago
Btw, I wasn't saying to just add one of Cantor's numbers. His mechanism for picking diagonals, whatever it is, is a countable list. He picks a first digit to disagree with the first digit of my first number: That gives him 9
166.
by xscott 2y ago
You've edited your post a bit from what I originally replied to. Looking at your bijection stuff, I think you're just restating Cantor's diagonalization with `(a_n + 1) % 10` as your mechanism for choosing digits, but maybe
167.
by xscott 2y ago
I won't claim to have any proof in hand, but there's still something fishy about it all. I think things like Banach-Tarsky and such ought to be treated as counter examples to show the absurdity of the Reals. At times I've th
168.
by xscott 2y ago
Even Cantor's counterexample, where he traverses the diagonal of an enumerated list of numbers, he has a countable number of choices to pick his digits. So we've built a countable set, and he claims it's incomplete by pickin
169.
by xscott 2y ago
What could it mean to have full measure but nobody can provide any method of generating the digits to a single element of the set? We can define things like Chaitin's constants, but we don't know very many digits, and Chaitin&#x2
170.
by xscott 2y ago
The flag calling it "strip types" seems to suggest that they are ignored and discarded, where Deno will actually use the types for checking. I haven't played with Bun.
171.
by xscott 2y ago
I'm not familiar with Germany's model. Can you give a brief explanation?
172.
by xscott 2y ago
All that work to animate the little bits of data on the canvas, but greying the text was so irritating I closed the page. You don't realize how often your eyes jump back to previous sections until that ability is taken away from you.
173.
by xscott 2y ago
As far as I can tell, it's a combination of corruption, mediocre education, and plentiful amounts of sugary foods and entertainment options (bread and circuses).
174.
by xscott 2y ago
The other one I'm seeing lately is a semi-stealth "service charge" on the bill. Something like 18% to 20% added to the bill without really standing out. This used to be something they'd do for "larger parties&quot
175.
by xscott 2y ago
Who knows. "It's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future" , but it might be a good thing to accelerate switching to new crypto algorithms sooner, leaving fewer secrets to be dug up later.
176.
by xscott 2y ago
Thank you for the link. I appreciate the write-up. This sentence though: > breaking some cryptography schemes it not exactly the most exciting thing IMHO You're probably right that we'll migrate to QC-resistant algorithms bef
177.
by xscott 2y ago
Thank you for the reply and links. Good stuff.
178.
by xscott 2y ago
Heh, that seems evasive. Good metric or not, it makes me think they aren't at the point where they can factor `15 = 3*5`. I'm not trying to disparage quantum computing. I think the topic is fascinating. At one point I even cons
179.
by xscott 2y ago
Aether is back on the table: https://youtu.be/Zf7H7P8QrGo
180.
by xscott 2y ago
What's the rough bit count of the largest numbers anyone's quantum computer can factor today? Breaking RSA2048 would be a huge breakthrough , but I'm wondering if they can even factor `221 = 13*17` yet (RSA8). And as I&#x27

More ›