nuncanada

This has been done countless times with Bacteria... Bury your head in the sand as much as you want...

Bought it just because of the interviews with Knuth and Norvig, but it amazed me how fun and interesting was to read all the other interviews also. Definitely one of my favorite CS books.

I have a theory of superconductivity that also explains that, unfortunately this comment box is too small for me to explain it.

Yup silly.. And people consider the closest mostly in the sense of the closest distance between orbits not distance between planets...

IQ is the variable with most correlation for income at your 50s.... I have friends with extremely high IQ with a very similar path to yours...

Actually, I think most of the bad rap comes from the community. A community where the majority still thinks that using the CodeIgniter framework is a reasonable way to develop in 2022.

Worse, if you take "Imaginary Numbers" to be only the necessary complement to make polynomials factoring complete... And "Imaginary Numbers" are definitely a necessity to describe reality... Meanwhile almost all "Real Numbers" are nothing but phantasmagorical numbers which we cannot name nor talk about them... It seems beyond the pale that we still are teaching these bizarre axioms instead of the Computable Reals which don't have all these phantom numbers...

It does matter a lot. Knowing the origin makes us able to try to prepare for it in the future. Specifically if it was a lab leak, we should put highly stringent procedures for conducting such research. Theses labs should be isolated far away from major urban areas, and have mandatory quarantine while leaving it... For example...

TL;DR: I spoke with a lot of people in the industry and thus came to the conclusion that X will not be disruptive...

The good part of the bet is that most potential disruptions end not happening... But the exactly same median consensus is also reached about the disruptions that do end happening...

Mathematicians have been constantly been giving bad names do their concepts... Imaginary Numbers is one of the atrocious ones, Imaginary Numbers are part of the fabric of our reality... Meanwhile Real Number were axiomatized in a way that creates completely unrealistic numbers, "ghost-like" numbers, numbers that can never be given a name... The first course in Analysis is ridden with examples of Continuous Functions that are not continuous in any sense humans would consider ever it...

Then there is a huge problem with how we publish Science... Decades ago, sharing all these huge datasets would have been quite difficult if not uneconomical. But nowadays there is no reason left for not publishing the data and hopefully get academic rewards for that... I have seen huge amounts of data not being digitized and lost because of this ownership mentality...

19% are too ignorant to know it?

I have been bitten by this really bad idea of reusing HTTP CODE for application problems. The server was 404 itself instead of the application.

It is a bad engineering idea to reuse HTTP codes that can be thrown by multiple intermediaries confusing the client code.

He hasn't derived 3 dimensions from this framework yet... The whole program is very interesting, it might find general laws not only for Physics but for many phenomena, but I feel like Wolfram has jumped the gun on connecting Physics to it... Particularly, I think that quantum non-locality might be evidence that fundamentally 3 dimensions is just an emergent property, but that has yet to be derived from this hypergraph framework...

Not "good enough"! There are so many known instances where Evolution gets trapped in local maxima and can't escape it... Another local maxima that photosynthesis trapped itself is its efficiency being jumbled by higher O2 concentrations.

REST is a waste of time and effort, use GraphQL.

No. It is not... The CUT operator is worse than Ruby's monkey patching for debugging and maintenance reasons... Prolog without CUT is awesome, but currently there is no way to have reasonable performance without it.

No. It scales linearly with circuit size. Exponentially with qubits size. Just read Scott Aaronson's blog, probably the greatest expert on this subject. https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4372

Do you realize that what you are complaining about has the same problematic root as what you think are good ideas? They are all pseudo-scientific ideology. Hayek and neoliberalism just as much as the radical left ideology...

Curious, what are you coding Solidity for?

Fall of Hyperion is the other half of the book. Hyperion is only the first part... They only got divided because the book got too big.

I must the only crazy guy that thinks Boltzmann and Weierstrass got the wrong axiomatization and Real Number Set is an oxymoron? They are completely physically unrealizable.

Every number that is not computable in the the Real Set is also not possible to be written down, don't have an algorithm for it, we can't even talk about or name any of them. All we can talk about is this uncountable part of the Real Set as a Set but never about one of the numbers itself.

A simple answer would be: the Natural Numbers can be axiomatized infinitely many different isomorphic ways in First Order Theories. Which one is the "right" one? None and according to FOM wisdom you shouldn't care. In Higher Order Theories there is a very straightforward and natural way to define the Natural Numbers. Could you create other isomorphic axiomatizions? Yes but they certainly wouldn't be as pleasant and straightforward...

For countable sets, the Axiom of Choice becomes the Theorem of Choice...

Precisely. Any attempts of even discussion about Higher Order theories on that list ends up with Harvey stating something that can be translated to those without the technical expertise as "Every higher order theory is a first order theory in disguise". Which is true but besides the point. Just look at Peano's axiomatization of the Natural Numbers and perceive how intuitively bad it is at abstracting what Natural Numbers are. He constructs an "ugly" object that is isomorphic to Natural Numbers, but doesn't correspond to what Mathematicians intuitively believe the Natural Numbers to be. With a Second Order theory you can just axiomatize the Natural Number in a pretty straightforward way that correspond to Mathematician's intuition about the Set...

But ohh, it HAS!!! You are just looking in the wrong place... Basically it happens all over the world, what is called 'carry trade'... All the money being printed in Japan in the last 30 years has been creating inflation in a lot of the underdeveloped countries in the world, just not in Japan... The World economy is so interconnected nowadays that most policies of the past doesn't work anymore as Central Bankers would expect. Keynesian Ben Bernanke's helicopter isn't creating inflation nor growth...

On average, the legislative representative has no clue about the motion but someone along its party said to vote yes or no and that is it...

To be fair, numerically most of the new laws pass in a "alternative" voting style where you have only the leader of a block of parties voting for all the block... And sometimes they even form blocks of laws to the voted in this style... So yes, no discussion at all...

You have to understand also that we follow the Roman Judicial System, so we have a hundred times more laws that the Anglo-Saxonic countries...

I prefer PHP to Javascript... And PHP does sucks.

Agreed. But such a reasonable assumption would inviabilize philosophers writing so many papers and books... What model did you adopt?

About being correlated, I guess it is simply not true, just check statistical models. What happens is that increasingly what is considered good research are what top schools are researching... Like String theory in Physics...