wrnr

The frustrating thing isn't the small problems, in chasing these small problems one might find a big one that isn't as easy to fix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbSehcT19u0

Crumbs and pennies I need all of mine

I've heart this being repeated a lot so it is likely not something you came up with yourself.

I always become suspicious when a software engineer has been working on a problem +10 years. The type that spend their time upgrading angularJS to angular or something like that.

He is a kwak, instead of actual science he shills these ideas on podcasts because the general public is interested in it or something like that. Whenever I meet someone from Harvard I think of this guy and automatically think less of them. Maybe that is wrong of me but then the Harvard alumni ought to have called him out on his BS.

I've been part of 4 commercial project that used the semantic web in one way or another. All these project or at least their semantic web part where a failure. I think that I have a good idea on where the misunderstanding about the semantic web originate. The author does seem to have a good understanding and is right about the semantic web forcing everything into a single schema. Academia sells the straight jacked of the semantic web as a life long free lunch at an all-you-can eat-buffet but instead you are convicted to a life sentence in prison. Adopting RDF is just too costly because it is never the way computers or humans structure data in order to work with it. Of course everything can be organised in a hyper graph, there is a reason why Steven Wolfram also uses this structure, they just so flexible. At the end of the day I don't agree with the author opinion of the semantic web having much of a future, I did my best but it didn't work out, time for other things.

Unrelenting these people pretending to be your friend, life so futile it borders on evil.

How does what I say validate all or any criticism of science, I just don't think that people who work in this industry get to take all progress though human history and put that on their own lapel.

Do you know this podcast decoding the guru, it is funny at times in breaking down internet persona like Jordan Peterson and Eric Weinstein but what annoys me about it though is this "researchers" talking about fringe internet phenomena. Sure you can find your cooks on the internet but maybe they should point their sharp criticism at their own sometimes and draw conclusions from it, as in stop funding it.

What do you call people that disagree to agree on something ... a research community. For all the good science I know I can equally find you the most asinine navel gazing triviality repackaged and sold as groundbreaking progress. Please don't get me started on what experts in innovation management ISO 56002:2019 can do to help valorise all this knowledge as they piss on us from from the top floor of their ivory tower.

People I know in academia complain about the same issues, publish or perish and all that. They even opine about formal economic models that predict that more funding/subsidies for science leads perversely to less outcome in total and not just relative to the size of the additional investment. However when you take all this as a reason to not take this industry as serious as they would like they get all offended.

Funny he don't mention recruiting engineers hate it but is what the OG's did.

It is the opinion of the EU Comission that monopolies are ok as long as they do not abuse their power and if they do they get slapped with a fine.

I bet C# and F# are actually nice languages and I shortly considered adopting them together with Unity but at the end of the day I was still suspicious of Microsoft, and support for other platforms then windows. The article honestly sounds a bit like a straw man argument. Maybe bloomberg could have made another tech choice but then again I don't know the details.

This will clear that up for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjSE1h_Ad9E

He got fired because he was embarrassing his employer.

It might have some explaining power but I can think of counter examples from my own personal life. Schizophrenia just like autism a very defuse category that covers many non overlapping conditions.

I think this silly joke by jreg about Schizotism/Autizmophrenia explains it best:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHuFSnhKG9I

This happens a lot mathematicians might have their favourite object they study like Category theory and then get hung up on categories of categories but might forget that many simple things aren't categories like the prime numbers under addition because 2 + 2 = 4 and that is not prime.

Not just programming or math, in physiology you have entire research groups worked up about a molecule that causes dementia and after decades of research realise that the story was a lot more complicated than that.

You can almost recognise a healthy mind by the lack of such dogma, just don't make it a rule that would defeat its purpose.

  if timeslots.stream().matchNone(Timeslot::hasntEnded) {
    new Timeslot()
  }

People are quick to act insulted whenever I give some critical remarks about FP.

When would you use a forEach function instead of a for each statement, I suggest maybe only use the function if the callback is actually a higher order function you get from somewhere else as I don't see the point of wrapping your logic in a closure.

Same thing with the use of observables/reactivity in UI programming, again it is illegal to question this orthodoxy. But then you take a look at how graphics programmers use immediate mode programming and fancy compute shaders to draw the entire frame every frame it makes me smile at how much simpler everything becomes.

Great I am looking forward to seeing mode code like this:

  timeslotRepo.findAll().stream().filter(timeslot->timeslot.getEndDate()==null).first().ifPresentOrElse(()->{}, ()->{new Timeslot(DateTime.now())})

I would give historians a little bit more credit than that. Sure if you have some agenda and something too proof then you just have to go back X years to find something like a justification. The other day I was reading the transcript of the testimony of a Nazi SS officer at the Nuremberg trail that executed multiple extermination camp wardens and guards for the crime of lacking the right paper work for the killing of inmates under their care. A crime he discovered after someone shipped 2kg of dental gold to his office and he started to wonder how many teeth one had to pull to get that amount and where the death certificates where of the previous owners? Turns out that those teeth where pulled out of the mouth of jewish victims of the gas chambers by other jews who where collaborating in the destruction of their own kind. Nothing about this is controversial amongst holocaust scholars, just fucked up shit that happened. If you wanna conclude from this, Nazis good and jews bad, you are just not paying attention.

[1] http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/trials/konradmorgen.... [2] https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2011/10/holocaust-n...

Yea but HOW? Do you think there is some cheap pareto improvement to be had here. For god sake, the article is advocating for hurting and killing people and then complaining about a lack of political consensus.

The is wrong on so many levels, in most places be it country or company the bus is being steered towards what is thought to result in global carbon reduction. This is a classic example of a moth and bailey argument, if only we had the same confidence about what to do about climate change as the fact of climate change. According to this article it is as if we only need to elect the right people and then those shall do the right thing.

CO2 is not irrelevant to this story, the nitrogen produced by farming in bad for a type of growth called raised bogs that thrives only in nitrogen poor conditions. Now you might not care about this unimpressive shrugs and grasses but they are one of natures most effective ways of storing carbon.

To be honest I don't know how much this raised bogs plays a role in the carbon calculus, but the dutch government is not doing a god job explaining this.

The third system, WebGPU, solves the memory management problem. Another thing cuda does it gives you is a convenient way to describe how to share data between cpu and gpu. No good solution for this yet, I'm hoping for some procedural rust macro.

Code is a non-linear medium, depending on the path one takes thought the graph and the scale one operates at clean might mean a very different thing. Take a long look at the history of ideas, it might be obvious looking back that thing should be the way they are, but no one just knows them as if they are a prophet. Even if there are sign of something being ugly or a hack this does not give any guidance as what direction to take next.

How long did it take him to do this setup, a year you say, and that is impressive? I am not trying to be cute here, my question comes from a genuine place of curiosity. I've love to learn to spin-up a system like that, but from the tech/sales talks I see I am made to believe this can be done in a day. Expectation management is important, if people say ops is just a solved problem then I expect this to take very little time and to be easy to learn. Maybe I am learning the wrong thing here, and should do learn Helm or something more high level.

The semantic web is like the guy that tells everyone that he is an asshole, and then surprise it turns out he is an asshole. The best quote so far: How can we explain this discrepancy from a mathematical perspective (thereby patently ignoring strategic, economic, social, and other aspects that play a role).

But what is Dhall? Ok yes, something that helps you write config files because Kubernetes is a pain. I am not a DevOps person so I can't always empathise with the problems DevOps deals with on a daily basis. That something is written in Haskell for Haskell sake is not something I care about. Not that I dislike Haskell, PostgREST is written in it and that is one of the coolest and most productive things I know about, and it does not ask me to learn Haskell (just a lot of SQL).

How does it compare to something like CUE[1] which uses a lattice algebra to weave config files and code together to manage different configuration environments similar to how some computational-algebra-system use pattern matching and rewrite rules to encode mathematical knowledge.

[1] https://cuelang.org/

I once aced an interview after the recruiter handed me the list questions, all soft balls like "what is the difference between a promise and an observable". Naturally I googled every one of them and during the interview had to hold myself back as to not to totally dunk on the questions. Afterwards the recruiter called me back with the good news, I said it was almost unfair how easy it was, he just laugh and said that not everyone that gets the questions on a silver platter actually passes the interview.

Helping people can be an incredibly unthankful job, take for example the reddit user who's mom is a crack whore and to help her he drives around one day in the week to look for her and buys her something to eat all the while not being sure if she still knows who he is. EA just pisses me off, where on your list is this poor woman or her son and forgive me for asking but where on your list am I? Do good things and try to get away with them.

Solid is great, you can also use it with hyper dom expressions: https://github.com/ryansolid/dom-expressions

QM may be a linear system but QFT is not.