Hacker News Reader

Comment by GhettoComputers | Hacker News Reader

Depends what you call a fact. If I say that this Processor is the best at these benchmark, does it matter that the benchmark favors it? If I say a camera takes the best images, but omit they’re difficult to do consistently does it have the best quality? If I said these headphones sound the best and produce the most accurate sound, what if it’s true for me but not for your music genres?

View on HN

- Then I trust that this processor is best au this benchmark (but not necessarily at other tasks)

- I trust what you say, and the best camera for me will depend on those factors

- I trust that you like those headphones, that does not necessarily mean I will too.

But there’s no other measure and it’s implied it’s the best. People will think it’s the best.

I might not say that it’s difficult, since it’s easy for me, or to trick you to buy it, it’s still a fact.

Headphones might be the most subjective but I’ll say they produce the most accurate sound (to me). You don’t have a way to measure if you like them or not.

from https://sure.nlb.gov.sg/tng/surevivors-activity5/

"Facts will also be unbiased. They do not support only one perspective and present the information in an objective manner"

Of your examples only "Processor is the best at these benchmark" is a fact.

You said "does it matter that the benchmark favors it" and I don't think that matters. You aren't saying "This processor is the best processor" then using the benchmark as evidence, you are saying the processor is the best at the particular benchmark which is true even if the benchmark is bias, manipulated, or whatever.

The point is they see the benchmark and assume it’s the best because they don’t have another measure, like using IQ as the only metric to success.

Not one perspective, right then- how many? Is 2 perspectives the best number? Or do we need to add every conscious perspective? Who is deciding what the "meridian" of bias (which is a range) is located? Cuz right now its in Greenwich UK but im not sure if that "fact" was known to the other side of the world until forced. Empiricism is empire and quantum is weird mannn

Asking how many is like asking somebody to precisely define which numbers are small and which are large. These concepts are vague, there are logic systems which analyse vague phenomena known as ‘fuzzy’ logic systems. But based on the ending of your comment, I can’t tell if you’re serious about any of it.

I guess the point i was trying to make, while dismissing the "validity" of it is that encapsulated factual models all still require some references- at some point truth breaks down into trust in the chains of composition. I dont understand fuzzy logic nearly enough - but it needs some kind of rule set and knowledgebase yes?

Lets say you program a fuzzy logic controller that returns large=true for numbers > 100, and i program mine to return large = true for numbers > 10. Like you say, its subjective.

These rulesets are chosen as truth in the same way the grenwich meantime is 0* lat, and we dont use the paris meantime because we arent french revolutionaries and also the brits had stronger empire.

If i came off as joking its bc i am aware of the lunacy of my take. To call "normal" good is a strong position, but who was norm?? And why do we all have to measure up to him?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com