hyperpallium2

prefer semantic abstraction even when it creates duplication

This beaurcratic development feels like turning a super-tanker that's connected to a hundred other super-tankers. While I accept the priority of back-compatibility, I personally lack the working memory to manage it, while creative problem-solving.

The non-nullability issue seems to be about performance, not cognitive load (search the article for "writes atomically"), though not articulated.

Bloom's 2 sigma problem solved at last! But that's overestimating LLMs, our zeitgeist.

AI can't detect AI, not because AI undetectable, but because it lacks judgment. Its shtick is random generation; the proverbial monkey on a typewriter.

Fewer features = smaller frame, easier to satisfy, better customer targeting.

Why not replenish with solar i.e. pump it back up into a dam-battery?

What does clocks mean here? A new usage?

    “Emacsification” clocks that everything now works this way, not just baroque text editors.

IANAG but the idea is that women get two copies of the X chromosome (XX), and men only one (XY). This explains why women have squared the colour blindness rates of men - women have to get two bad copies, men only one.

Many intelligence related genes are on the X chromosome, so it makes sense you get more variation in men. However, not all genes interact in this way.

Thanks - looks like this has already changed in line with GGP since my time. https://peer.asee.org/open-book-problem-solving-in-engineeri... [pdf]

New degree: B.Goo.

Law exams are open book; Engineering exams are not.

I'm not sure exactly what the distinction is - apart from law being "soft" and requiring argument - but it's deeper than inability to reuse past papers.

He's making a more general statement, with "root of all evil", that improving some aspect of something without understanding its effects on the whole outcome, is literally the root cause of evil in the world, in general. Winning the battle but losing the war. Not seeing the forest for the trees. Getting lost in the weeds. Unenlightened self-interest. Not hyperbole, but a particular instance of a general concept.

But on code optimization, k deeply nested loops are not a bad guide to O(n^k), and a candidate for optimization.

That said, I once cached something that obviously needed to be cached - so obvious in fact that a deeper level in the system already cached it.

It's more a research question.

I think it'll be more like ordered keys in JSON - not ordered, according to the spec, but very useful in practice, because easier to compare, locate keys by eye etc. This order might not merely be "the same" as the input happened to be, but an order customarily used - and there might be a semantic reason for that order in the first place, used in some original, non-JSON, representation.

Tenuous.

A problem with semantic markup is when it doesn't do what you want, and you need to wig-wam it. Does this mean you actually wanted presentation markup? Or, since you are trying to convey meaning, does it mean that the semantics aren't rich enough to describe what you mean?

In this D2 example (https://d2-lang.com/assets/images/intro-example-a917149ff3b7...), the diagram is nicely designed to be centered on the nexus node crawler. But the choices of which side the tributary nodes are on is not. You might want cron below and ps->express below - or to the sides.

The grammar can be extended to accommodate this (maybe already has been), but what is the semantic meaning of above, below, left or right?

One semantic choice is made: the "persists" arc is unidirectional, and is presented left-to-right - a natural order for many languages.

(Technically, "declarative" needn't be "semantic", but arguably is the most useful one)

It does seem wrong that nature would use irrational numbers - the fault is more likely in our concepts. Our mathematics may be more parochial than we realize - than we can realize. Alien mathematics may have taken a different route.

pi is not irrational in base pi

https://web.archive.org/web/20220811213920/https://etiennefd...

FYNI jq was originally implemented in Haskell.

jq uses bison (gnu's yacc), which is a nightmare for error diagnosis. Additionally, the founder (though brilliant - or maybe because brilliant) wouldn't accept improvements in error reporting.

jq used to do this, but changed to preserve key order.

Android tablet + termux + bluetooth keyboard is cheaper, and better performance in some ways...

The only problem is Google slowly locking down and squeezing the life out of termux.

Pedantry: the only exception I could think of is a timer (delay, alarm clock), where the output is when, not what. sleep 10

Yes, information technology is for processing information.

Any transformation can be decomposed into lossy and lossless components (aka bijectve and non-bijective; reversible and non-reversible). The nice thing is that the lossless component can be automatically checked for that property.

The Story of a Fisherman https://www.highview.com.au/the-story-of-a-fisherman/

Luck is when opportunity meets preparedness.

There's an interesting approach to "consciousness", as what you are aware of, consciously. i.e. attention management. Animals are conscious of their environment in this way. But because humans also have a lot of models going on internally, the mechanism adapts to that (perhaps higher mammals too; I don't recall). This fits nicely with your experience and the submission. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31373806

I wonder if our "conscious reasoning" is really just attending to a column that does that? Certainly, formal reasoning is a skill that is learnt and practiced - perhaps not so different from a manual skill. We can also suppose pattern-matching on this, to get intuition and hunches. All old ideas, but perhaps neuroanatomy is advancing sufficiently to test them?

Also: Minsky's Society of Mind

The Top Idea in Your Mind https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1536356

Folding, glasses or projection seem the only ways to smaller yet bigger.

On a folding phone, I found the hinge is noticable on a blank screen - but not when watching a video. Not sure how it will go with a terminal, but if a window doesn't cross the hinge, would it matter?

Further to your point, a lecturer who has long understood something can find it hard to understand how someone could misunderstand it - the kinds of misunderstandings they night have.

aside/ school teachers are different, they learn typical misunderstandings with experience.

All the extraordinarily intelligent people I've known worked unbelievably hard.

This technique is derived from Feynman’s studying methods when he was a student at Princeton.

A compelling essay would be to rigorously argue that this indeed was his technique. It would be a lot of work, long, and I suspect you won't find support for some elements; you'd have to modify your proposition. In particular, although he does do each of these things, I don't think they are chronological or form a systematic "technique". It may be easier to argue for them separately, as e.g. The Four Feynman Techniques.

Then, reference that essay from a shorter, lighter overview, like the one submitted here.

I don't think Feynman laid out that technique, as such? It seems inferred, indirectly supported by a patchwork of quotes about other things. Doesn't mean it's not true or useful, of course!

Another Feynmann Technique (also not actually said by him, but of him. https://wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

  You write down the problem.
  You think very hard.
  Then you write down the answer. 

In my experience, for ordinary problems, this is so important that it often directly reveals the solution in itself.