HN user
https://news.alvaroduran.com
@thealvaroduran
Election timeout is random to prevent split votes. The up-to-date restriction ensures that you can only get elected if you're ahead, which, combined with the requirement to gather the votes of the majority of the votes, ensures that the leader has all committed entries.
Check section 5.4.3 in the paper, where it proves it quite elegantly IMHO: https://raft.github.io/raft.pdf
Same happened to me; I owe a career to having gone through his Mega Tutorial. Miguel if you're reading this, thank you from the bottom of my heart.
This is so helpful, congrats!
Didn't he also told you about nostalgia? ;)
I'm surprised the book Sovereign Individual is not mentioned even once in this article.
The whole book engages in the same "projecting trends into the future", on the same topic. But in a more detailed way.
In fact, one of the early points it makes is that the Roman Empire, when the last emperor gave way to a tribe lord that invaded Rome, officially when the empire fell, everyone pretended it didn't.
Like the emperor is out, he's living somewhere else, but yeah the empire keeps going, nothing to see here.
Only years later, decades if I recall correctly, did the implications of the fall of the empire truly reached culture.
The shell was untouched, but the insides were rot already.
I think what Yudkowsky is missing in this analogy is the fact that the human can use an AI too, which levels the competition significantly.
Not to downplay the absolute behemoth of a task they manage to pull out successfully...but why not upgrading as new versions came along, with less fanfare?
It is a great read, but I can't shake the feeling that it's about a bunch of sailors that, instead of going around a huge storm, decided to go through it knowing fully well that it could end in tragedy.
Is the small upgrades out of the question in this case? As in "each small one costs us as much downtime as a big one, so we put it off for as long as we could" (they hint at that in the intro, but I might be reading too much into it).
Thank you so much for your answer
Noob here, how is Lean4 different from TLA+ or Alloy? Is that even a reasonable comparison?
Edit: Wrote Allow the first time, good stuff.
In my humble experience, you gain a LOT from writing the questions yourself, I point that I'm not sure if the author is stressing enough.
There's also the problem with cards that are difficult to memorize, which is something that you don't know in advance, and that's a good thing! It shows you were you should pay more attention, write cards in different forms, etc.
There's a somewhat famous movie in Spain called the Miracle of P Tinto[0]. It's a very surreal humor kind of movie, if you fancy that.
The plot starts with the star character who wants to form a family, but when he asked adults how to have kids, they would all pull up the suspenders and sing "tralari, tralari" to evade the question.
And so the poor guy did exactly what he was told: pull his suspenders and sing, for years, to no avail.
I think LLMs are a bit like that: because they can't escape the world of text, they can't go beyond the reality that text is trying to be isomorphic to. Which means that LLMs are forced to infer answers in the context of its training data.
If LLMs were told that in order to have kids you, well, you know, right? Bees and Love? Then LLMs, asked about sex, would infer that the answer has something to do with apiculture and flowers.
yeah, I opened it just in case they explained how it's done. For research purposes of course.
You could say that it requires God levels of discipline.
Ha ha ha, you're probably right, I came across as an entitled teenager.
But seriously though, taxonomies are part of the whole science enterprise. Unless we formulate hypothesis that can be used to predict new phenomena, we're missing out. Or just cargo culting.
So let me get this straight: the authors of this study find that adults are showing signs of infantilism. And rather than looking at what are the consequences, they focus on the causes, and label the child - adolescent - adult stages as...traditional, hinting that it's just one of many ways in which we can "stratify" lifespans, so to say.
In fact, in the very first sentence, they say that this view is no longer relevant. As in, for who knows how long, it was. Suddenly it isn't.
This framework for viewing ways of organizing society as equally valid and inconsequential defeats the purpose of what, I believe, social sciences are for. I don't need a taxonomy of options, I want actionable insights!
I love Z-library, it's obvious that once we've found a means of transmitting books as "code/software/bits", the concept of copyright was changed forever, the catalog available in Z-library is superb, and the site is easy to navigate.
What I see talked way less is that the quality of new books, in light of this, is very bad. Most books out there that were published in the 21st century serve as business cards. Commoditizing the complement, they call it.
Why did you let things get this bad? Why did you ignore admonitions from regulators?
Well, you said it yourself: admonitions, AFAIK, aren't directives, and executives can and—of course given their incentives—will ignore them.
Oh man this is wonderful, thanks for the recommendation!
Ironically, all those videos that start playing and are hard to escape from as you read this very post are quite distracting, too.
In view of this, it's hard to read this article as "why is Windows showing their stories and not mine?".
I feel like this post can nicely be complemented by Yaron Minsky's talk on why they chose OCaml as a programming language at Jane Street:
Nothing to comment about the framework per se, but, just pasting the Powerpoint slides comes across as lazy. Why not write something down?
This reminds me of Tufte's "The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint". Highly recommended.
I've been asking myself *this* for the year-ish I've been working with Ruby on Rails. The idea of encapsulating any piece of logic into a class function in order to call a single method is very weird, given that you can do the very same thing with just a method on a model class. Payment.process seems superior in many areas (understanding, readability, explainability) compared to PaymentProcessor.new(payment: payment).process.
It dawn on me that the latter is precisely what people at Java do, and I've reached the conclusion that this way of writing software is enforced by Java developers who realized they needed to learn Ruby because their job prospects are better, and are simply retrofitting what they used to do in a new programming language.
What I miss from these conversations is an emphasis on memory. I know it has a bad rap, since it's not the same as understanding. But I have the feeling that most of our work relies on things that we've done so many times, they've been memorized and do not need to be looked up again.
Have a look at Anki https://apps.ankiweb.net/, the tool that I use to make memory a choice. See also Michael Nielsen blog on this: https://augmentingcognition.com/ltm.html
Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, in which citizens are manipulated into an intelligence-based social hierarchy.
This is by far the WORST one line summary I've ever seen about that novel.
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned "The Secret of Our Success" by Joseph Henrich yet. It discusses this line of research in more detail, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
You only need to spend only a few minutes watching or reading the news, in any country, to hear and see victimhood raging.
Isn't here the true relationship, rather than a made-up "sickness" called TIV (sounds a lot like untreated depression, but *no expert*) between safetyism and the constant barrage of clickbait-y, outrageous news we can do nothing about?
At some point we have to reach the conclusion that most of the time products fail because they are of lower quality compared to their competitors.
The only way I can see psychological safety effecting the eventual outcome of Google+ is someone who, being psychologically safe, would have said right at the beginning, "this is stupid, don't even try it".
Arguably, reasoning why to go to university feels more like rationalization rather than supporting evidence. It's definitely not physics.
On the other hand, believing that your actions have consequences, and that you will pay for your mistakes, is a very good assumption. But in the sense that you mention, it's "unsupported". This lack of evidence may lead me to conclude that societies are hung by a thread, and that collapse is imminent. It could be, but societal collapse simply hasn't happen after an unexpected, global, unprecedented turmoil.
Why some assumptions are "better" than others? THAT is a very good question. My take is that there aren't a priori: some societies believe some assumptions, and survive, and others don't. In a sense, to me, assumptions are only good in retrospect, and it's an idea that "feels" correct rather than something I can "prove".
Well, this makes perfect sense. Why on Earth does someone go to university? Because there's a strongly held belief that the sacrifices made are worth the rewards in a future state of being.
That is not too far from believing in the afterlife, if you come to think of it.
Japan is hardly the first country that comes to mind as "functional". They've been stagnant for several decades.