deeThrow94

5 ms·

1.
by deeThrow94 1y ago
Also, it doesn't make sense to price homes in absolute terms. Surely relative to wage would be a better indication of the health of the market. Unless we can bring the wealthy to heel of course.
2.
by deeThrow94 1y ago
If you can't learn from a shallow dismissal, that's your problem.
3.
by deeThrow94 1y ago
[flagged]
4.
by deeThrow94 1y ago
Can you come up with some conception of recursion that doesn't involve symbols referring to themselves, directly or indirectly? Ie what is left of recursion when you remove the linguistic component?
5.
by deeThrow94 1y ago
I agree that there's enormous value in carving out mathematics from other linguistic reasoning, but I don't see defining as something as mathematic rather than linguistic is generally useful. You use the same skills to look for in
6.
by deeThrow94 1y ago
> We don't call this recursive... it's just incrementing x That's not a recursive function as it's written, but you could certainly consider it a form of symbolic recursion. This just isn't a very useful charac
7.
by deeThrow94 1y ago
That's fair. I agree that there's more to problem solving than just linguistic ability, so I rescind my claim that they're indistinguishable, but I still think there's a deep relationship between the two. I have a very d
8.
by deeThrow94 1y ago
There are two ways that recursion intersects with language that are relevant here: 1. Our spoken and especially written grammar is recursive. We do handle this unconsciously. This is not related to our ability to reason about recursion at a
9.
by deeThrow94 1y ago
Recursive functions are just a subset of all possibly recursive concepts. In the case of human spoken language, the recursion exists in our characterization of the grammar. You could just as easily frame this in "iterative" terms
10.
by deeThrow94 1y ago
If you define recursion as a symbol referencing itself, either directly or indirectly, and if you define language as a system of relating symbols to each other, recursion is a linguistic concept, it is a concept that describes a relationshi
11.
by deeThrow94 1y ago
To be clear, the symbols themselves don't bother me so much as trying to refer to them in spoken english. I have no particular beef with the use of symbols in code, which can be quite readable.
12.
by deeThrow94 1y ago
> That problem solving skills are relevant is pretty obvious, but language less so. To me, problem solving ability is precisely the same as the ability to articulate the problem and a solution. I don't see a major difference. If yo
13.
by deeThrow94 1y ago
I don't really know what you mean by "conjecture", but I thought apriori was implied by positing it as a linguistic construct. "Fundamental" doesn't imply empiricism at all. All of apriori knowledge for a langu
14.
by deeThrow94 1y ago
I'd argue none of that math is really necessary. While I have used most of my classes at least once, it was never a barrier to advancement in my career. Hell you could say the same thing about any of the theory. Like yea it's cool
15.
by deeThrow94 1y ago
I can't speak for other forms of FP, but symbol operators make communicating about haskell very annoying. Outside of that FP seems to be doing fine, IMO.
16.
by deeThrow94 1y ago
How do you communicate an inductive proof without language? Even formal symbolic logic is fundamentally linguistic.
17.
by deeThrow94 1y ago
I'm a terrible speller; it's taken me ten years of typing "ammend" to learn its proper spelling. It also sort of goes against the "programmers are lazy" meme: why memorize what a computer can detect and correct
18.
by deeThrow94 1y ago
100% agree, I've been saying this for years. I'm terrible with arithmetic but great with symbols and relations. Recursion is also fundamentally linguistic, and although our internal "stacks" for processing it naturally a
19.
by deeThrow94 1y ago
I highly recommend reading Schumpeter, both "Business Cycles" and "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy". He discusses how motivations fundamentally change after profit margins peak and argues that profit after this point
20.
by deeThrow94 1y ago
This is true, and it is disgusting.
21.
by deeThrow94 1y ago
> then it wouldnt be long before it was invaded by Russia or China I would be lying if I claimed I hadn't dreamed of being liberated by a foreign power with more cultural competence at governance (which excludes Russia, obviously, b
22.
by deeThrow94 1y ago
Philosophy as a concept isn't an issue; but we tend to romanticize the tendency to neurotically examine even when we know finding "truth" isn't possible, and I've noted a tendency in people so devoted to unconscio
23.
by deeThrow94 1y ago
I had thought the clear need for anti-trust had tickled down to the plebs on here. Unfortunate to see that people still casually refer to free markets as if it's a meaningful concept. If you really truly think that regulation is draggi
24.
by deeThrow94 1y ago
Very good points. I've been trying to figure out whose interest is in our "national interests" my entire life. It sure ain't protecting my interests or those of anyone I love that justifies a trillion dollar a year mil
25.
by deeThrow94 1y ago
Ah it's just romantic; let's not be so harsh. LinkedIn would be so lucky to get a post like this.
26.
by deeThrow94 1y ago
I enjoyed this article. I am confused though how this was a difficult problem to begin with, particularly with the internet. It is not exactly hard to find intellectually stimulating concepts if that's what gets you off. I also find &q
27.
by deeThrow94 1y ago
A win is a win
28.
by deeThrow94 1y ago
> So it adds legitimacy to the free market spirit seen in markets like EU, which has been criticized for making up arbitrary rules for self-interest. I'm confused a) who is taking the concept of free markets seriously, especially in
29.
by deeThrow94 1y ago
> This isn't a problem with the technology; it's easy to observe that it doesn't happen with better-known languages. Your problem is that you don't have a model for your target language. technically, you're corre
30.
by deeThrow94 1y ago
I know any of us can demo a feature, but how specifically is an LLM gonna correct your tone when it can't understand tone itself?

More ›