deltasixeight

7 ms·

1.
by deltasixeight 5y ago
Your computer. It hacks your computer to find out the state.
2.
by deltasixeight 5y ago
http://www.ismycomputeron.com
3.
by deltasixeight 5y ago
Ease of reading is a practical feature not a beautiful one. If you think practicality is beautiful well great.
4.
by deltasixeight 5y ago
Go is an ugly language. Practical but ugly.
5.
by deltasixeight 5y ago
> A lot of odd Nix hate in here, or at least extreme dislike. I hate this expression. I'm a nix user. But if you can't understand why people dislike it... you're the one that's odd and out of touch. If you want people
6.
by deltasixeight 5y ago
Theoretically if the pesticide is below a certain threshold I should be fine. However if I mix thousands of dangerous chemicals together while keeping each portion below the danger threshold until I have a cup of this stuff I can gulp down
7.
by deltasixeight 5y ago
I read it. Science is not logic in the same way that a brick building is not a brick. Your description is inconsistent. You differentiate logical theories and scientific theories as different yet you call logic the science of what's po
8.
by deltasixeight 5y ago
>Not going to address your weird attempt at wordplay There's absolutely zero need to be rude. There is no "wierd" word play here just misunderstandings and impoliteness by you. >Also, axiom can be just a rule in a rewri
9.
by deltasixeight 5y ago
>This is factually false. Probability is embeddable into predicate logic, but predicate logic is not embeddable into (Bayesian) probability. This is actually an open problem (how to define a probability theory that is equivalent to predi
10.
by deltasixeight 5y ago
Hard to say which came first. Probability can be defined in terms of axioms and classical logic just read any probability book. Classical logic can also be defined in terms of probability by setting all causal relations to be 100% (See baye
11.
by deltasixeight 5y ago
No. You are both wrong. Logic is one of the fundamental axioms of the universe. We assume logic is true and consistently applies everywhere throughout the universe. This "rewriting expressions" thing is just a symbolic representat
12.
by deltasixeight 5y ago
It's more than just a different way of thinking. There's an intuition gap caused by human bias. We bias towards one way of thinking and moving out of that bias is extremely hard.
13.
by deltasixeight 5y ago
> A dedicated ticket-churner might be the most efficient way to churn tickets. But why are you so sure that the ticket stream amounts to the best long-term future for the software and its customers? Because a ticket churner worried about
14.
by deltasixeight 5y ago
Agreed. I'm not fetishizing scalability. I am saying that it is an inevitability. If you can avoid it great, but if you continue growing. You must face it.
15.
by deltasixeight 5y ago
*would've agreed
16.
by deltasixeight 5y ago
>Claiming that his approach was “not scalable” and that yours is “flexible” sounds naive and conceited to me. Insulting people for a differing opinion that is introduced neutrally is not a conductive way to communicate... it is way of co
17.
by deltasixeight 5y ago
You're thinking along the lines of the dimension of distribution. Yes in terms of distribution, software scales because it can be copied. However there are many other dimensions of scalability to consider. Examine the complexity of the
18.
by deltasixeight 5y ago
Consider the fact that when complexity of the system rises to a point where no human can comprehend it, the project must lean more and more on specialization rather than a bunch of jack of all trades ownership type organization. Ideally, pe
19.
by deltasixeight 5y ago
This type of philosophy is good but not scalable or efficient. Scalability and efficiency requires well defined specialized roles. Additionally the more specialized and "stupid" each compartmentalized role is... the more efficient
20.
by deltasixeight 5y ago
>This means, and I assume, we can also base all of our equations on say "energy is not conserved and always increase by 1 Joule", though the physics equations might be much more complex. We can but this won't match with ob
21.
by deltasixeight 5y ago
>Ah screw it I can’t finish this. I don’t know how to translate the steps without mutable state. I can either lose the ordering or I can say “then mix in the bananas,” thus modifying the existing state. Anyone want to try finishing this
22.
by deltasixeight 5y ago
>Convention to me would mean something that has been accepted just because it’s always been done that way and people didn’t really bother to question why. You're wrong. The Thermodynamic laws are sort of axiomatic, meaning you reall
23.
by deltasixeight 5y ago
Yeah you're right, but you do get my point. I should write, causation ALWAYS IMPLIES correlation.
24.
by deltasixeight 5y ago
If two things have a causative connection they ALWAYS have a correlation as well. If two things have a correlative connection they don't always have a causative connection as well. I never repurposed the word equal. But to say they are
25.
by deltasixeight 5y ago
And respectfully. You're wrong. Utterly and completely. This is beyond opinion. This is logic. I urge you to think about it.
26.
by deltasixeight 5y ago
Inaccurate. This is a overused misnomer. Correlation is a necessary precursor to causation, but it's existence does not guarantee causation. If correlation is established it doesn't automatically establish causation as well, but i
27.
by deltasixeight 5y ago
Look man. I'm not going to rationalize this. The main reason why I use syntax highlighting is because I'm use to it and it looks cool.
28.
by deltasixeight 5y ago
>However, individuals do not necessarily inherit intelligence from their parents' genes. Seriously, who could think that you could build a lineage of "gifted persons" solely by genetically selecting the parents among the p
29.
by deltasixeight 5y ago
No. You don't understand science. Science is about making a hypothesis and then verifying that hypothesis against observations. That's it. One thing to note is that within science and therefore the universe as we know it, no hypot
30.
by deltasixeight 5y ago
I hope this need for a citation comes from genuine curiosity and not some misguided ideological want to uphold the notion of equality in intelligence. It just doesn't make sense given a more macroscopic view of things. If inheritance o

More ›