Chronos

6 ms·

1.
Silicon Valley’s neurodiversity problem(medium.com)
3 points by Chronos 9y ago|0 comments
2.
The Google Manifesto is a tangled knot of bad statistical reasoning(code.likeagirl.io)
2 points by Chronos 9y ago|0 comments
3.
by Chronos 9y ago
This is because Homestuck ended, isn't it?
4.
by Chronos 9y ago
Which is a blatant lie, or else Uber wouldn't bother with the expense of driver background checks and the like.
5.
by Chronos 9y ago
You can be damn sure Uber has a record of every Uber ride ever taken. Even if Uber had incorrect records in their database about which car picked up the rider, because the driver had e.g. failed to update Uber with their current car and pl
6.
by Chronos 9y ago
Your analogy is incredibly bad. Imagine if GrubHub itself provided the menu and contracted out to semi-anonymous restaurants to cook the food; then imagine that it wasn't salmonella or the like, but rather that the cook had pissed in
7.
by Chronos 9y ago
That sounds like the sort of story a child would make up to explain why their hand wasn't really in the cookie jar.
8.
by Chronos 9y ago
If Subway tells the cops "I won't say who it was", and they say "he hasn't worked at Subway for two years anyway" (this being a bald-faced lie), AND the medical bills from the stabbing set you back millions of
9.
by Chronos 9y ago
That's a record extent, not a record volume. Volume is how much ice there is. Extent without volume means the ice is more spread out, i.e. thinner.
10.
by Chronos 9y ago
As I understand it (not being a physicist): the graviton, if it exists at all , would have to be a massless chargeless spin-2 boson for it to fit our understanding of what particles are. But the graviton has never been observed, nor has a
11.
by Chronos 9y ago
It's squared because energy is work, work is force times displacement (distance), force is mass times acceleration, acceleration is velocity per time, and velocity is vector distance per time. So you get: mass × distance × ((distance
12.
by Chronos 9y ago
Fine. "Straightforward, if menial and tedious".
13.
by Chronos 9y ago
None of the papers you listed address hypercomputation! They are irrelevant to the Lucas-Penrose argument.
14.
by Chronos 9y ago
I can put it another way: It's easy to write a computer program that outputs every statement provable from the Peano axioms: start with the most primitive possible statements, then progressively output more complex ones. This is becau
15.
by Chronos 9y ago
I already read through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_interpretation when I was trying to figure out what nonsense you were spewing. The article does not mention the Church-Turing thesis, hypercomputation, Göde
16.
by Chronos 9y ago
"gravity plays a role in wave function collapse that will pose serious questions for the Church-Turing hypothesis" Says who? Penrose is blacklisted, cite someone else.
17.
by Chronos 9y ago
Call me back when Penrose convinces a well-regarded quantum physics expert. At that point we can call up Scott Aaronson and ask him his opinion, as Aaronson is an expert on the intersection of quantum physics and computing.
18.
by Chronos 9y ago
Penrose is not arguing that the human mind is illogical. He is arguing that it is uncomputable, which is a big difference. In particular, he's saying that the human mind is capable of outputting true statements that cannot be proven t
19.
by Chronos 9y ago
> The claim is that you can not adequately model the Human mind with a Turing machine. Pointing out that Human's are not logical only strengthens this claim and does not refute it. False. "2+2=5" is not a true statement,
20.
by Chronos 9y ago
LQG is not believed to allow hypercomputation, i.e. the solving of Turing-uncomputable problems. Penrose's entire argument is based on the idea that the human brain is a hypercomputer, which is why it cannot in principle be simulated
21.
by Chronos 9y ago
Penrose is not just arguing for objective collapse. Penrose is arguing for something computationally more powerful than objective collapse.
22.
by Chronos 9y ago
Also: before I bother building a Turing machine that implements a proof-generator for statements in ZFC, you should do me the courtesy of showing your investment by building me a Turing machine that multiplies two integers. Turing machines
23.
by Chronos 9y ago
Show me a paper proving that what Penrose argues for and what quantum physicists call "objective collapse" are the same thing.
24.
by Chronos 9y ago
1. Easy. Program a computer with the axioms of ZFC. Not powerful enough? Program it with ZFC+Con(ZFC). Repeat as necessary. 2. The Turing machine itself is logically consistent. The semantic interpretation of its data need not be logic
25.
by Chronos 9y ago
Ugh, this again. 1. Let's suppose for sake of argument that humans really can see the inherent truth of "Peano Arithmetic is consistent". That doesn't mean humans violate Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem: it could jus
26.
by Chronos 9y ago
Um, you seem to be operating on a confusion of ideas. Materialism does not imply that humans are logically consistent. The universe in which we exist is (probably?) a logically consistent system, but that's true for both materialis
27.
by Chronos 9y ago
It still requires explicit action. However, the old way had a little dance between the old process and the new process: the new process tells the old process to start shutting down, the old process stops listening for new connections, then
28.
by Chronos 9y ago
A while ago I wrote up my objections to the Penrose-Lucas argument: https://chronos-tachyon.net/essays/penrose-objections/ . I'm not super proud of how it turned out (way too meandering), but it boils down t
29.
by Chronos 9y ago
Anyone who depends on the Internet for their business should know better than to run 10 year old unpatched Internet server software.
30.
by Chronos 9y ago
In a lot of scientific and mathematical fields, "law" means "a mathematical relationship between two or more things that seems to hold under common circumstances". Take Newton's Laws. They're not true , as R

More ›