Comment by 082349872349872 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by 082349872349872 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

082349872349872

Although relatively far inland, 高千穂河原 would be on an island convenient to have been settled by horse-archer-ruled people coming from the eastern end of the eurasian steppe, by way of a peninsula which shall not be named here. (and far enough south to not have had to immediately impinge upon 擦文文化?)

I'm not sure if the idea is that groups are as wise/responsible as individuals so much as that if one wishes to accomplish something as a group it helps greatly to have the relevant individual buy-in (in some cultures it seems to be the habit to gain consensus first, and only afterwards bring matters to an official vote).

Yes, exactly that time period, but that would make you meeting the Old Physicist somewhat like the Tao/Erdős picture? (and to first-order, yes, bits-exclusive: hence why I think I'm much more likely to contribute something to my wider context by working on quantales than in expending effort in attempting to coax the primates to get along)

EDIT: also late 80s/early 90s, the zine InFormation: "Every day, computers are making people easier to use."

also a historical note: in 1815, my locals decided "hey, you know, Napoleon's patches were in many ways better to the Ancien Regime", so they pretty much kept the new revolutionary structures, and just replaced all the french who had been adminstering them with local boys.

someday I need to figure out the latin for "Man, the rationalising"

Laters, after i get some shuteye, for the counterriffs,

RN to report a TIL before i forget: Botai horses a different subspecies..

In fact, an improvement over pshrimp: Pcheval!

悪い奴ほどよく眠る?

Pcheval is an excellent metaphor, because the biggest problem I see beginners have is that instead of learning how horses think, they first try to hold them to the standards of human thought, and then, when that predictably fails, proceed to attempt to wrangle them as if they were horribly deficient humans: p-chevaux.

[which does rhyme with feudalism as a system in which humans are wrangled as if they were domesticated herd mammals on two legs: p-zombies with honour]

looks like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sintashta_culture is current best candidate?

I'm very sympathetic to the view that the (longue durée!) progression was eating->chariots->riding, especially as we have some evidence that for quite a while people had tried to ride horses like they already rode donkeys, back closer to the croup.

(also, several generations of previous domestication probably helps a great deal to first catch whatever equid you're experimenting with riding)

>it helps to have the relevant individual buy in

How about having a single post buy-in ? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41891694

It may be that im being hypernormal and you’re being weird here*

It may be that while the half-domesticated subspecies died out, the tech that was in-bundled survived? (Or even the morphology.. cf Kiso breed, which i suspect was also rode like donkeys?) https://archive.is/B7FBn

(Seems either E2L effects or the authors were trying hard to claim but not claim that they found Przewalski (note, merely nominative, not philosophical :) genetic material)

*hmm, re:31-60 upvote:comment ratio hasnt burnt into my HN reflexes yet. Watching how submission time and day plays with that.. the post may draw out the partisans, but also, later into the depths of night, the loquacious but neurotic Old Guard..

Edit: u2c ratio seems to have a downweighting threshold of around 1.25 so far, not factoring in the rise speed or moderator intervention yet

Edit2: MITI- cocytarchy not enough (or phronetocracy, for that matter)

Edit3: top comment is already softflagging TFA as “nonsequitur/histrionic”

Edit4: if the lion is an article and not a person, then nothing prevents the discourse from degenerating into a brown noise canid fight, especially if the initial article hasnt been properly formalized into code

Using the terminology from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_assignment_ma... :

Are you saying it's better to have an Accountable person than an Accountable group, while I was attempting to say if a group is Responsible then they'll probably be more effective if they all each believe they're accountable?

Then there are the situations where an Accountable person has no power over the Responsible group, leading them to implicitly (most often) or explicitly say זבשך: "that is your problem"...

Nice way of depicting the dilemma (or trilemma). I dont see any straightforward way to resolve it rn.. maybe more thinking about which should work better in what situations.. it does seem to depend on timescales.

(There was a comment in the MITI thread about the culture of secrecy, that rings true, note that their final act was to os Prolog.. trust is situational)

(But also laughable security in the academic side, feels like Jacobs is haunting them, MITI failed to bridge the dichotomy.. nothing like a smooth uni to industry prefabd pipeline for them)

might be something to your viscosity conceit — orgs as non-newtonian fluids?

as to situations: when training mammals, sometimes "shaping" works better: introducing novelty little by little ("salami slicing"); sometimes "flooding" works better: presenting a novel situation all at once ("ripping off the band-aid"). unf I don't have any* theory for it; it's more gut feel, and I've noticed my wife succeeds with flooding in situations where I am certain I'd have to proceed by shaping to have any hope.

* any beyond "shaping is safer but slower", that is

oops; forgot to make the connection explicit. Shaping would be low pressure over a long time, and flooding high pressure over a short time, so they could be alternative ways to factor any given amount of Pascal-seconds.

Can you make your (proposed?) patch (to DS, presumably?) even more explicit?*

[ok, y is “seconds” peeking out from the other “si unit”]

To me, it makes more sense to say (<- what you said)

  string (representing expression) to expression ( <- destructure value to env)
  expression to (shorter) string ( <- eval expression )

(Trying not to make “string”/“word”/“expression” interchangeable)

*i sometimes cannot ask my friends questions (similarly, but also different, to this) as it would be too embarrassing XOR explicit => better (even more symmetric?) sibboleth?

that could make sense, yes. I think one way to keep them from being interchangeable is to say that a (linear) string is composed associatively:

    A,(B,C) == A,B,C == (A,B),C

while an (arboreal) expression is not:

    A,[B,C] <> [A,B],C

one syntax I've played around with is due to physics envy:

    ⟨expression∣intermediate bindings∣pattern⟩

eg

    fib := ⟨n*fib(n-1)∣n>1⟩ + ⟨1|n<=1⟩
    gcd := ⟨gcd(x,y-x)∣x,y>x⟩ + ⟨gcd(x-y,y)∣x,y<x⟩ + ⟨x∣x,y==x⟩

    ftoc := ⟨c∣ c:=t*5/9; t:=f-32 ∣f⟩    NB. °F to C

note that (for codegen purposes) we can simplify expressions and (with failure provision) patterns by expanding them into the intermediate section, similar to ANF; if we were going all the way down to assembly we might want to lower through

    ftoc' := ⟨c∣ c:=t*m; t:=f-a; m:=0.56; a:=32.0 ∣f⟩

but on the other had could have raised to

    ftoc'' := ⟨(f-32)*5/9 ∣ f⟩

and, on the gripping hand, if we wished to be austere, maybe it could be worth it to even insist that in the expression place, computations be injections, in the intermediate isos (changes of representation), and in the pattern surjections?

(note also that here for simplicity I've deliberately used non-overlapping patterns; there's a nice pattern-calculus that allows for both simpler programs and simpler interpreters if one allows algebraic combination with overlapping patterns. However, I've probably made my language unadoptable because no matter what the syntax, combination of patterns is always deliberately unordered — ordering can be achieved if the user insists, but as a 2nd class construct)

finally, everything is given here in the identity monad for simplicity, but the same ideas carry over unchanged to other monads.

Exciting, i.e. might even play with this soonish

alternate syntax at https://oortcloud.flounder.online/junk/ (sorry, very telegraphic!)

[with mostly up-to-date semantics, but this year I gave up on approximating (≲), which is \refines in the suite, in the language itself; the following seems to be more productive (for technical reasons related to using an implementation-specific total order):

    FNull <= f && f <= f    NB. <= is discrete

where equality of closures is pessimistic, based on lexical source and equality of the captured environments, so:

    f <= g ==> f \refines g 
    f \refines g <=> f`x ~ g`x

using (`) as application]

it may help to read chapter 2 of https://www.cs.utoronto.ca/~hehner/aPToP/ for the basic data structure inspiration; another alternate syntax would be to stick with his (for data; this all grew out of wishing to treat functions very differently)

I've also been inspired by the Boom Hierarchy (in terms of trying to put laws, especially distributive/module laws, first) but as my areas of interest don't run to commercial proggys, I haven't found a use for the bag level. [Lamport stuttering, otoh, suggests that ordered but absorbing would be a useful abstraction — and I think that'd easily be buildable on top of this basis]

if I can remember out my creds for oortcloud, and it would help, I can make available a browser-based precedence tool that translates expressions in the JUNK syntax into their abstract trees.

Sorry, waiting for w.a.o to debug themselves, using it as an us-heirs-approved (or rather judgement-mostly-withheld) pro-bono to the su-heirs-approved alternative (which has a largely orthogonal feature set)

It does smell like there is something here*, but judging by your scleras (shall we say, sclera-pupillary boundaries) we should focus on the GR-QM convo, just a tad more..

(Where tad = some kind of dot product with this convo)

(*the (non)associativity)

Percival: Arithmetical properties of strongly chaotic motion ?

TIL Scwhinger was on the Bonaparte counter-clockual programme...

Any chance you could sketch to me why SM works with SR but not GR? Curvature?

[squinting hard enough, is the Wick Theorem related to how algebraically, given pairs (2-things, and hence rel'ns) one automatically gets all finite n-things?]

[another squint: separated at birth: space-ordered vs normal-ordered, and all the sign gymnastics* in computer graphics geometry, where re-ordering matters and vertices are connected by digons of two half-edges?]

is there anything related to the notion that one might have a bunch of geodesic paths connecting events, but that we might apply creation and annihilation to these as well, so fewer geodesics would lead to positive curvatures and more to negative?

* what I like about my algebraic CS model is that I often skim systems papers, and think, "oh, this is just exploiting this particular instance of distributivity..."

Ah thanks for the metaflooding!. was trying to achieve a balance between the 2, kinda like

“Number theory might be the future of physics, but fluid dynamics is the future of number theory”*

I concede to a weakness for triangles, such as this

   < money >< math >< magic >

Napoleon’s sleep schedule: i’d only heard about the 6 hours of sleep (because thats the schleppy shit that VCs want to see in designori). That TIL has a delugional [aka magical] aspect, ac, thanks! Rriight, the logistics of iDevices seduce one with the allure of “High(-functioning) Culture”, the logistics of disposable commsats do not (yet)

(PPPS Compare with the more prosaic (but more sophicatedly structured) PGcal newtonian obssessions — NoTe:honest! in (conscious) bona fide hindsight this comparison was reached TIC

  < minting >< natural philosophy >< alchemy >

)

PS:original(?) & utter speculation was that the political purges+relaxation to common sense “worked” for the revolutionary army, but not navy. Political commissars having an unexpected effect on routes to victory? (Too difficult/costly/nonsensical to give basic naval training to PCs. Naval anything is showing > telling.. do we even credibly remember what the legions marched to??)

*i havent delved at all into his work, Gisin is the almost-crackpot name to look up, major patch to K,AN is what he seems to be aiming for.

PPS: schlep has a “bootstrap”-py (as it were a schleppy term for magic) aspect: reducing schlep involves schlep

Update:

TIC: TK-monad HK-dyad (>power<>sex<)

Debreviated:

Today I Compared

I don't know how well attested it may be, but somewhere I ran across the notion that second-tier chimps get the most action, because the alpha chimp must spend almost all his time shoring up his (male) political base.

[if NB had the same habits at home as in the field, imagine him busy with paperwork trying to run the empire from 0100-0600, during which time his Marshalls ("Ein bisschen dreist, ein bisschen Mut"?) were occupying themselves in sidesprings?]

shall we call this “cavalier-mode”? Bernadotte due to his ties, and most of the other marshalls due to other ties, couldnt enjoy the spoils of war, but Lasalle?

certainly! à la hussarde

according to AICD: https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/11247/pg11247-images.ht...

sometimes I wonder if Lasalle reported lists in priority or reverse priority order:

https://larevuedhistoiremilitaire.fr/2020/04/08/extravagance...

> j’arriverai à cinq heures du matin ; je me commanderai une paire de bottes, je ferai un enfant à ma femme, et je partirai. —ACL

no, upon reflection he was just going by temporal order: [arrive,order,knock up,leave]

I don't necessarily understand what Gisin is up to (it might help if somewhere he has an explicit delta between his axioms and K's?) but I might indeed have a propensity to find it interesting.

Schlep is the startup's equivalent of quantum tunnelling: you can't hope to out-schlep the established players in their own potential wells, but small amounts of schlep judiciously applied might get you through classical barriers, into a less-contested well?

Uhh for that you might have to bundle up something together with the Greene pilgrimage.. dont think he published his axioms anywhere [but you could also invite one of his students to a meal..]

Update: the review that set me on that future trail was this

https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.06572

Note: percival applied significant patch to KAM

from its abstract, Gisin's https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-021-03378-z seems worth pursuing, as I believe intuitionistic mathematics is so popular in computer science because we are always busy forgetting information.

OK, the bits [sorry] that I read don't seem to go any deeper than the "could it be" above.

My recollection of the basic problem in reconciling QM with GR is that of simultaneity: how do you manage to have an "open" future when various potential observers' future-fronts are all angled to each other?

I'd guess that the hyperbolic nature of light cones mean [hands waving madly enough to fly me to Africa] that there's enough wiggle room such that any conflict-resolving process occurring at space-like separations has finished by the time the events are in a past time-like cone; we don't even necessarily need a timelike source of random bits, as they are always naturally impinging from the rest of the universe.

What am I getting wrong with that model?

[Subtle gods could then leverage chaos to work in ways undetectable by their creations?]

Lagniappe: https://xkcd.com/378/

after short reading, looks like PCs went out with the Convention: those who were not already without their heads on 4 Brumaire IV were without their jobs?

EDIT: also seem to have been plenty of zampolit in the VMF.

Lagniappe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrector#Roman_Antiquity

EDIT2: 林白樂 via PMWL probably liaised with PoWaBu?

EDIT3: AIS wouldn't have had a commissar in his unit in 1945, but he would've had a zampolit, which makes his own behaviour seem even stranger?

Sorry, not sufficiently erudite to parse PoWaBu

renominative only? Zombified PCs overcame (thermidorian/stalinist) reaction? (cf Lannes, reading like a serial founder story, compare Villeneuve, reading like a serial bigcorp CxO)

Yes, AIS was a weirdo?

PoWaBu was a dead end anyway — now I'm much more interested in the overlap between 鮑羅廷 (MMG) and PMWL (1923-1925?); they would've had at least two languages in common.

Thanks for MSN; I wonder why he hasn't been publishing with Springer, where he'd be easier to find?

hmm. I'm not sure where MSN is going with all the mechanism to handle partiality.

JUNK makes everything total, so composition just works, and refinement doesn't need to take into account domain; the following:

   f \refines g <=> f`x ~ g`x      NB. (~) is (<=) for bunches

is true for ∀x, not just implied when x in dom`g.

On the other side, for program correctness, I'd always thought the whole point of Hoare triples was that in {p}f{q};{q}g{r}, {p} is chosen (wp or wlp) explicitly so that never not {q} ... which in turn ensures {r}.

Hmmm im still a bit distracted. Whats MSN?

How far is your idea of refinement from some def of “derivative”?

MSN = Prof. Dr. "Renominative": https://csc.knu.ua/uk/person/nikitchenko (has my citation-fu been too weak to lead me to your intended referent?)

Very far (tho I have some other, derivative-like, concepts, but much fuzzier)...

"Refinement" in this case is a CS term of art, sorry: to say that "f refines g" is to say that f's domain[0] includes g's domain, and each fibre of g^-1 includes the equivalent fibre of f^-1, so anywhere in a computation you had a g, it could safely (although not always lively![1]) be replaced with f. In particular, programs as deterministic implementations refine their indeterministic specifications.

(the best specification[2] is the closest to chaos that one can get that still does the right thing — which I guess loops back to leadership?)

The optimiser's (pedantry: we really should call it an "amelioriser") job is to reverse one of those arrows, so when the programmer writes f, the optimiser tries to discern the comm... sorry, programmer's intent to determine the spec h which coarsens f, and then substitute a g which also refines h: f <- h -> g.

[0] here JUNK simplifies by using an appropriate lattice: as Nuts (the undefined/unconstrained value) includes (~ = is included by) all defined values, we don't need to speak separately of domains: f \refines g <=> f`x ~ g`x

[1] there is a term of art from our army which refers to the art of making oneself scarce when tasks are being handed out; similarly, in CS there is a distinction between "safety" and "liveness": nothing is always a safe, albeit unproductive, thing to do.

[2] on the dual end of the lattice, in general there will be many programs in the neighbourhood of the maximally determinate that still makes progress. This is why, if we have a "science" at the spec end, when it comes to imps we instead have an "art" of hacking or a "discipline" of engineering.

Hmmm, so its closer to what you intended to mean when you said “distributions are prefunctions?

Im still confused.. didnt msn publish w springer?

[1] in Deckung gehen?

yes, msn did; I hadn't found that yet when I wrote it, because I'd been expecting he'd be publishing in the same journals as, say, your fellow Ithacan Dexter Kozen.

[1] not exactly, but defo in that direction!

What you may be getting right might yet underlie some resolution of at least a couple of the Hn’s :)

Lets just say, compressing an obscene tonnage of number theoretical hndwav’ry folks usually prefer one direction of SR <=> QM.., so whatever is “extra” in GR maps to the “extra” bits (sorry) in QFT (that JvN had almost no inkling of, that Feynman had just a wee bit (sorry))

[looking at the arxiv 16xx review again, it does seem that Gisin had the right motivations in 199x, but git mostly distracted (not sure about students).. i’d have thought that “heterodyne detection” wouldve set you off]

indeed! sorry, I'd been looking for a better entry into Gisin that might suit my limited (I have MTW, but have not yet worked through it, and my QM knowledge is also at an SR-level — when reading RPF's pop QED lectures I could see integrating e^ix terms instead of his little arrows, but that's about it) background, so I hadn't yet peeked into 16xx vintage Gisin.

SAHD reminds me of http://blog.sigfpe.com/2005/05/dual-photography-part-i.html (in part-ii the experiment was indeed successful, but that seems to have been lost to the mists of the web, at least while wayback is down?)

There was a decent 1 para summary oh phySE lets see if i can find it

Edit: riff on your riff, timely reminder (to self) to attend to Thom’s catastrophe theory and its environs

Reply on news.ycombinator.com