DonbunEf7

Xoogler here.

First, no, I don't trust you. Sorry. You seem like a nice person, but that means fuck-all when it comes to trust.

Second, who cares about the employees? Google is not its employees. A corporation is a golem, animated by legal fiat and supposedly obedient to its owners. But the corporation's own internal power structure, as well as the larger structures above it like the state, the world, culture, etc. are what determine what it can and will do.

You say that you all have compassion for humanity. And I'm sure you do! But that didn't prevent Real Names.

You say that you all have respect for privacy. And I'm sure you do! But that didn't prevent personalized ads.

You say that you all have morals, ethics, and the general ability to distinguish right from wrong. And I'm sure you do! But that didn't prevent Youtube from being steamrolled by anybody willing to swear out a DMCA request, to say nothing of Youtube Red.

So, the question is, do you trust your employer? Not your bosses, not your peers, not HR and Legal, but Google itself, the golem?

Let go of your brain.

We can perceive this moment in time, right now. We can also perceive moments in time which are not right now. To do this, use your imagination and explore your memories or fantasies. Therefore, there are many moments in time. However, it seems like only one moment in time is experienced simultaneously; this is the illusion.

Robin Williams had Lewy body dementia [0], which almost certainly contributed to his choice.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dementia_with_Lewy_bodies

There is one shining result in mechanism design, a subfield of game theory, called the revelation principle. It says, simply, that if one doesn't like how the game is played, one may design the game that they want folks to play, and offer incentives accordingly, and people will play the game according to the incentives.

While this may sound like academic bullshit, it is the closest thing you'll find to a solid philosophical foundation for why proof-of-work or proof-of-stake systems should be expected to work in practice as well as they do.

Quote: "One possibility is to treat AC as a powerful drug and take it only when necessary. Theorems should come with consumer labels saying what went into them. So if you see a box on the shelf of 'Banach and Tarski’s Miracle Duplicator! Feed Multitudes!', it will say on the back of the box 'Contains AC'."

Indeed, many mathematicians are sensitive to this and try to point out when they invoke the Axiom of Choice, and there are other mathematicians who deliberately seek non-AC-powered variants of theorems in order to put them on less nebulous and more constructive ground.

Personally, I view AC as another reason to consider more generalized foundations of mathematics. For example, if you know anything about topoi, it turns out that we can view set theory as a topos on a point, and any topos on a complete Boolean algebra comes pre-equipped with an inherent axiom of choice! [0]

[0] https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/axiom+of+choice

Can you find (possibly negative) integers x, y, and z, such that x ^ 3 + y ^ 3 + z ^ 3 == 33? If so, it's publication-worthy.

It's true. I recently was terminated. Two days later, I was spending all my time on my side business, my programming language, and about four home-improvement projects that had been planned but never executed.

"I can't slow down, I can't hold back, though you know I wish I could; you know there ain't no rest for the wicked until we close our eyes for good."

It's not mandatory. However, when I was at Google several years ago, it showed up on my calendar, it was not optional, my manager said that I was expected to attend, and I attended. But it's not mandatory.

You can't pick on education and then talk about negotiation; educators often are represented by unions, which means that you're talking about a completely different ball game.

Go to your whiteboard and draw supply-and-demand curves for a couple derpy markets of widgets and other goods. Then, draw one for labor. Note how the curves are reversed; if you draw it "backwards", then it goes back to behaving like a normal market. Now, try adding employment policies, like minimum wages, to the market; what happens to the curves?

Since some folks have trouble reading between the lines: Google considers all code possibly relevant to its business interests, and treats employees (in)appropriately.

The only way to win is to not have ideas.

It might not have been done with Google's time and resources; Google likes to strong-arm employees into agreeing that Google owns their side projects. The `google` organization on GH is a compromise.

No. I do not know how this name was chosen.

It's 2017. Stop letting users pick their own identifiers.

It's only a matter of time before somebody delivers a too-cheap-to-meter DOI-to-PDF service.

Why would I use this instead of Tahoe-LAFS or magic-wormhole?

Lojban has a central planning committee, the BPFK, so there is no danger of "Proper Lojban" falling prey to this, although certainly there have been dialects of Lojban in the past which deliberately were not parseable. They don't last long; none of the Lojban tools work with their experiments, so network effects tend to keep unparseable dialects from becoming popular.

From the beginning, Lojban's design has included this feature. It would be pointless to learn as a language if you intend to extend it in that way.

There are, of course, ways to experimentally extend the language grammatically, as well as a process for changing the grammar, which has happened before via the BPFK. It evolves, but with planning and consideration.

You are, unfortunately, probably just playing out Mr. Crab's obsession with record players.

Remember that these tricky images are based on the principle that machine-learning algorithms are differentiable and high-dimensional. There is a lot of ways to transition between, say, the desktop dimension and the cat dimension, and it's all continuous, so we're guaranteed to be able to influence the machine in that sort of direction.

You could imagine somehow taking all of the adversarial examples and categorically augmenting a machine's learning to know about the examples, creating a cat-masquerading-as-desktop dimension. But all you've done is make a lot more space (by adding a dimension) and so the next iteration of adversarial examples will be able to proceed by the same process as before, just on this new augmented machine.

Learn Lojban today: https://mw.lojban.org/papri/la_karda

Lojban is based on predicate and relational logic, and parses unambiguously for both humans and computers, meaning that we can get straight to semantics instead of faffing about with syntax.

Assuming you're complaining about the phrase "the rise of China," it's not racism, but economics and the wealth of nations. China's economy has boomed in several distinct dimensions over the past three decades. They are part of BRICS, the five nations in G20 who like to talk to each other about how fast their burgeoning markets are growing.

And, due to the way trade works, China's rise has changed how folks in the USA value and purchase goods. I'm sorry if this feels racist to you, but I can't fix you.

The answer to the government's argument, of course, is that information theory doesn't behave like empirical reality in several significant ways, which add up to the Internet being fundamentally different from the "real world."

They would rather not admit this. Or perhaps they don't understand.

Sorry, and I know that this is on NYT, not you, but what the utter fuck is that paragraph about the sandwich shop?

Walk through, say, Boston's North End. It's like walking into Italy. There are old men sitting in front of cafés muttering in Italian about the way the young folk dress. There are fresh pizzas and sandwiches with their smells wafting through the air. The streets are narrow, mostly pedestrian, and cobbled, with few cars coming and going. And, yes, if you go into a deli in the North End, you can buy cured meats with Italian names.

This is not a wealthy neighborhood. There was a period of time in the past when Italian-Americans were the subject of quite a bit of prejudice and stereotyping. It's news to me that Italian culture is somehow "completely illegible" to the poor, and I can't help but feel that whatever point the author wanted to make is lost or perhaps flawed.

(Somebody will say that the North End is uniquely Italian. Sure, but I grew up on the West Coast and learned about Italian sandwiches from an Italian sandwich shop anyway, because Italian sandwiches are not somehow confined to a tiny corner of Boston. Again, what the utter fuck.)

Stop feeding the wrong wolf. Your attitude is incompatible with free society; if everybody held your beliefs, then free society would end tomorrow.

I use Nix and NixOS and nixops. What can `now` do for me?

Fixing the governance model is well and fine, but is the smart-contract language up to the task as well? We are mainly looking for fixes to the recursive-call plan interference bugs from Ethereum. It's not clear how to create closely-held values either.

https://www.tezos.com/static/papers/language.pdf

Wang tiles, mentioned only at the end of the article, encode Turing-equivalent computation in their simple color-matching rule. It is unknown exactly how useful Wang tiles are to theory of computation, other than as a wonderful demonstration of how easily Turing-complete systems arise naturally.

I suspect that tiling may have applications in resource management, particularly when allocating resources like memory which have an underlying topological structure.

Edit: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.06492.pdf is worth considering, but I don't yet know what its relevance is.

I just left a place where nobody writes design documentation. I requested that several teams write documentation for their tasks and they refused.

As your company grows from small-sized to medium-sized, your technical processes need to grow, too.

Welcome to your modern culture, which is centered around neoliberal consumerism.

Names should be automatically generated. Alpha-equivalence should be trivial. English shouldn't be required, but you're not going to get away from requiring something of equivalent expressiveness at some level.

I am neither Byrd nor Friedman but I will try my best.

The short answer is that it doesn't compose very well, especially when doing relational programming.

Let's say that `people` is a record of some sort, and not a relation. That is, when we extract people, we get records of data which we can manipulate, and not a set of functions which let us relate the records to each other. Now, imagine a logical query which has the following steps:

    exists p :Person
    guard p.name == "Titus"
    exists gp :Person ? isGrandParent(gp, p)
    call scan(gp)
    return gp, p

How is this actually going to be executed? Well, you can imagine that first, we'll fetch a Person record, then we'll check if the name is "Titus", and then we'll fetch his grandparents, calling `scan` on each one. (No, I don't know why we would scan grandparents. Here in the USA, we actually let them skip the scanners.) Seems easy, right? What if we make a tiny swap...

    exists p :Person
    exists gp :Person ? isGrandParent(gp, p)
    call scan(gp)
    guard p.name == "Titus"
    return gp, p

Crap, this isn't the same program. We'll scan every grandparent, even ones without grandkids named Titus.

Relational operators are supposed to commute, but these ones don't commute! What happened? Well, accessing a runtime-computed non-relational fact, like the name of a person here, is an impure operation. It doesn't compose.

So! What's the right answer? We have to express the person<->name connection as a relation rather than a record:

    exists p :Person ? personHasName(p, "Titus")
    exists gp :Person ? isGrandParent(gp, p)
    call somePred(gp)
    return gp, p

Byrd's thesis glosses over this point and simply says that we should already have internalized the impurity of `project` or other projection operators.

Edit: I fixed some typos. Also, this paper [0] on my paperstack has Friedman as a co-author and purports to solve this problem in a generic way by adding pure symbolic constraints to miniKanren.

[0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.00633.pdf