613style

I think you're underestimating how subtle and ubiquitous modern autotuning is. The video here is an extreme example of a very broad category of effects. In reality, almost every professional recording you hear uses autotune in the same way that almost every professional photograph you see uses color correction. Most people don't notice it most of the time (despite most people believing they always notice it).

An alternative you've also heard extremely often is a singer recording the same line 100 times, then producers going through each word (or each syllable) to cherry-pick the sample where it was most on-pitch and blend them together.

Neither one of these represents the singer's real ability (whatever that even means), but both can be unnoticeable by 99.99% of the population when applied skillfully.

Think "probably" vs "provably" (it's about pronunciation/spelling)

The Deluge does have a built-in rechargable battery and basic sample slicing. The new 4.0 firmware added wavetable synthesis, euclidean sequencing, MPE/polyphonic aftertouch, and tons of other stuff. Their venn diagrams overlap a lot but each one has _many_ features the other doesn't. Honestly it's a pretty insane device for half the price and would be my pick too.

Maybe that's why I don't work at google :)

I was asked this one in a google phone interview in ~2009. I remember deriving that intervals of 10 floors were optimal in the two-egg 100-story case using some simple calculus and getting that far took me most of the hour. Your solution is super nice, but I hope you don't ask candidates to recreate it :P

"Accepting" in the context of mindfulness doesn't imply being passive. That's a common misconception. It's often said that passivity is the "near enemy" of acceptance, meaning one is easily mistaken for the other.

If such a program ever terminates, then the result is rational. If it doesn't terminate, then pausing at any point will always describe an infinite number of irrationals.

Just like with chess, when AI engines got very strong a few years ago, people started using them to find superhuman moves and win games. Now OGS will tell you how similar your game's moves are to what a computer would have played. Even professionals don't get above something like 75-80%, but I've lost a dozen games to people getting 95%+ on that metric.

KGS is still huge, but OGS has been consistently adding feature after feature for years. At some point, my impression is that most English people just realized it has a nicer interface and better analysis and cheat-detecting tools. The main downside is a lack of high-dan players.

(I don't have data to back this up, just my experience as a roughly 1-dan player who hangs out with a lot of U.S. Go folks)

Sort of. OGS is the Lichess of the English-speaking world certainly. There are several much larger servers if you speak Korean/Japanese/Chinese, but they also have less in common with Lichess.

I think there's two parts to this: first, if you know your input meets certain constraints, then there's no benefit to over-complicating the solution. Second, this is a teaching tool. It makes sense to start simply and save the harder version for later.

Evolution better get to work fast. We only have around 500 million years until the sun's increasing luminosity leaves Earth uninhabitable.

> By what possible commonly agreed upon definition could consciousness be equal to experience?

I'll turn the question around: What aspect of your consciousness is not an experience? What aspect of your experience is not a part of consciousness?

We can't really talk about what multiplication "is" or "isn't" independently of context. It's an operation on two objects and the context its used in is necessary for defining the operation.

Though it can be helpful to think of multiplication as scaling or rotation in certain contexts, or as repeated addition in others, none of those are a universal truth.

To say it's not related to addition at all is also too broad to be true. They're related in many useful ways that other commenters have pointed out, in addition to the obvious way that in some situations you can define one in terms of the other. Even at the cutting edge, our inability to prove the Goldbach Conjecture might have something to do with not fully understanding the deepest relationships between the operations.

"Injecting code," is not the way I'd describe making changes to a product that it's your job to maintain.

I agree that it's difficult to get to the core practical side of these things. Buddhism and related religions/philosophies have had a lock on meditation for so long that it can be hard to disentangle the real stuff from the stuff that got made up along the way.

So when you reach for The Mind Illuminated, which is a 400 page book, and trivialize the 390 pages of good pragmatic instructions on improving concentration and insight skills because you read 10 pages of spiritual mumbo-jumbo, you're missing a powerful opportunity.

The fact is that if you sit quietly and pay attention to your breath for a couple hours a day, some very transformative stuff will eventually start happening all on its own. No books or religion is required. But as a society, we mostly aren't willing to do that because of attitudes like that displayed in your post. We're making progress, though. Brains of advanced practitioners are being put in fMRIs with surprising results, and things are happening slowly. My point was that we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater in the name of being good scientists.

In many things related to mindfulness, breathing, yoga, and meditation, we in western culture have a bad habit recognizing the value of a very small part of a larger practice and then writing off the rest as spiritual mumbo-jumbo. For example, everyone knows that "taking a breath," helps your child to calm down. But we don't often go further into breathing practices, partly because they start to bump up against spirituality, because we as Very Good Scientists are naturally skeptical and usually biased against that.

Mindfulness is another example that we're just a little farther along with. It's now becoming widely known that being mindful for 5-15 minutes a day will lower your stress levels or help you control emotions or rise in the corporate ladder or help with other sorts of problematic behavior. But what happens when you go further? 2500 years ago, people knew that meditating for 1-2 hours a day leads to dramatic, permanent, and wildly transformative changes to your perceptions of reality and your relationship with the sensate world. But words like "awakening" are spiritual mumbo-jumbo so we apply our natural scientific skepticism, largely ignore the deep parts, and do our society a disservice.

So on one hand, you're right that we don't just completely dismiss these things. But on the other hand, we do often dismiss the important parts.

Don't confuse the terrain with the map. The formal systems which underly mathematics describing the universe are incomplete (containing true but unprovable statements), but that is not a statement about the universe.

Elm has a Debug.log function which takes a string and any value, prints "String: value" in the console, and then returns the value.

The repeated stretching/folding/waiting process develops the gluten like kneading does. You can tell that his gluten development is fine from the windowpane effect in first picture.

You wrap it in parens to avoid the warning: if ((x = 7)) { ... }

I'm not sure how a barely concealed personal insult helps the conversation. Kenji is expressing a simple true fact: when we meet new coworkers and want to have a casual friendly conversation with them, the question, "So where are you from?" is the simplest and most normal of small talk. Someone interpreting it as a microaggression is a great indicator that they will be difficult to work with.

At this point there's a basically unanimous opinion among Go professionals that humans don't stand a chance unless the time controls were skewed in a very unfair way and/or humans cooperated against the computer. Master's wins in the 60-0 games were extremely convincing (and that was using only 1 GPU).

I don't think I would agree with the general statement that science gives us axioms. In normal usage, "axioms" are not the same as scientific "givens" or "data" even though it makes sense to interpret the word that way. In math and logic, the axioms we use are typically very foundational. We might say, "the empty set exists," or "for all x, it holds that x = x." There's no need to invoke science for these sorts of axioms and we can make many useful conclusions without it.

I use an Advantage at work and a standard laptop keyboard at home and I would have to disagree. Using the Kinesis was a challenge the first week or so, but it never interfered with my typing on normal keyboards. The worst habit I picked up is occasionally mixing up + and ~, but that's not related to the matrix layout.

This is a great article. One thing I don't understand: the author says:

> If you want to create something heavy like the Higgs boson, you have to hit the > Higgs field with a sufficiently large (and sufficiently concentrated) burst of > energy to give the field the necessary one quantum of energy.)

So when the LHC creates a spike of energy at a point large enough to create a Higgs boson, why does that energy interact with the Higgs field and get "used up" by other fields? In other words, if Higgs requires 100 units of energy and electrons require 1, why do we get 1 Higgs boson and not 100 electrons?