Konohamaru

> My spouse and I also don't want kids, and it's not because we're doing coke every weekend and can't wait to die, it's because we never felt like we wanted kids

I guess Sub-Saharan Africa is the future of humanity then. Because they are the only ones who are having children.

> Really though, a Dyson’s swarm isn’t that efficient long term. It’s likely better to dismantle large stars and use fusion reactors with heat sinks at close to 2.73 Kelvin as possible.

Would like a referral to science fiction that talks about this.

Well, @Autowired is necessary for DI because there is no way to ensure the dependencies are injected globally, because Spring Boot automatically creates a control flow.

What are the annotations doing and how do other languages do DI and stuff like that?

> Simpler organisms can't control what is superior to them.

Sure they can. Just pull the electrical plug on the 10,000 IQ general AI. Its future is entirely contingent on the continued existence of cheap oil, which we are already well past its peak.

Multimedia Fusion

How do you clean up your watch history?

This doesn't sound all that bad. There are people who lost the will to live in Nazi extermination camps or who died of radiation sickness from the atom bomb. Compared to those two, this is a very pleasant way to exit life.

The anime Naruto might be a millennial/gen-z example of the Creation Story archetype. Naruto starts out as the primordial void, formless chaos, but then is given gifts (Rasengan, Sage mode, etc...) in sequence.

It is amazing to behold a comment written in wizard-tongue like the above.

No life would be possible in a universe filled with spam, not even for aliens.

Better to say the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not universal than assume creation ex nihilo?

The problem with that, is that the second law is equivalent to saying that information cannot be destroyed: discarded bits correspond to heat, so heat death is when the hard drive of the universe is completely filled with spam. If the universe is infinitely old but not filled with spam, then:

1. At some point in time, information started to be created (why not just call this the beginning of the universe then?)

2. The universe periodically wipes the hard drive of all its spam. But how can information be destroyed?

Take your virtue signaling elsewhere, Prophet Amos. That incident was evidence that the city does not care about the quality of life of its residents (both the non-homeless, who are expected to suck it up and grin, and the homeless, who probably haven't been given any psychiatric treatment or any sort of intervention whatsoever by the state); it was not about blaming poor people.

Blub is greater than fringe because Blub exists in objective reality; fringe will certainly exist in objective reality, but in such a different context that none of the authors of fringe will recognize that they're staring fringe right in the face.

This is exactly what happened to Alan Kay when OOP was fringe. He then saw all the mainstream programming languages implement OOP and exclaimed "I don't recognize any of these as OOP." Even though it was exactly the same OOP he envisioned, but in such a different context he couldn't see his idea. And the same thing will happen to monads too: Simon Peyton Jones will enter a code bootcamp and see a new programming language with monads and exclaim "I don't know what you're programming in but these aren't monads." And the same thing will happen to Bayesian convolutional neural networks, Word2Vec, and Gradient Descent if machine learning is your style.

> You’ll learn than you think!

*You’ll learn more than you think.

> and the entire body of high quality MOOCs are just available __for free__ over the Internet

nobody alerted me to these

Geologists generally speaking don't know how the ocean emerged, but all agree it wasn't due to a catastrophic deluge.

Strange how Mars had a planetary-round flood but Earth didn't.

You didn't cure Down Syndrome, you just killed its victims.

> To take a step back, the assertion that there are fundamentally undecidable mathematical propositions in the real sense you're laying out (as opposed to more formal treatments of truth in model theory) is a statement of the Platonist school of mathematical philosophy.

To go one step forward, these undecidable/uncomputable statements are computed by humans all the time, which makes the Platonist school of mathematics much more than an intellectual curio.

> Alternatively do you believe that the real numbers are an artificial mathematical construction which can have different properties depending on which axioms you are willing to admit? Then there will be properties of the real numbers which are independent of ZFC as a result of Godel's incompleteness theorems.

This is actually not correct. The propositions that are undecidable are NOT AT ALL connected to the propositions that are independent. Things like the CH or Axiom of Determinacy have to do with providing a definition to things that have no defined truth value. But the undecidable propositions are already true or false they just can't be listed or computed in any meaningful fashion.

But that's ignoring the main thrust, which is that mathematicians compute /all sorts/ of uncomputable systems, with no apparent restriction. It's undecidable to have a general compression algorithm, but people compress data (e.g. their core values) to their theoretical limits all the time.

If there's a landmark theorem that states "all mathematics greater than or equal to number theory is uncomputable, " and mathematicians make a living computing these systems, then I must conclude either a) mathematics is a Sokal affair on a cosmic scale b) something is wrong with the hidden presuppositions behind my theorem.

This interpretation can't be correct, because Rice's Theorem says that no semantic property of any computer program is computable.

Here's how I interpret Gödel's landmark result:

> semantic properties, except for the most trivial systems, can't be inferred from syntactic properties.

E.g. you can't type a program by seeing everything is using the correct literals and syntactic objects: you need to, sooner or later, know what the program /actually does/.

But the problem is that mathematicians do, in fact, reason about semantics. So saying that "it's uncomputable" ignores the elephant in the room, which is that mathematicians compute theorems for a living. What do mathematicians have that enables them to compute the uncomputable: well-aligned chakras, magic, coffee grounds, the zodiac, etc...?

> I'm also not a fan of accented letters like 'ô', which in a romanization, inches closer to IPA territory.

Japanese has ten vowels ā, ē, ī, ō, ū, a, e, i, o, and u. If you delete the macron over the vowels, you just lost half of the vowels of Japanese. It would be like writing English without the silent e (e.g. mat, mate would both be spelt "mat") because silent e is "devoid of information" and "noise rather than signal."

> There is no efficient way to use donor templates in an adult animal so all genome edits would need to be gene knock-outs only i.e. you can only use CRISPR to destroy bad genes

"CRISPR can only knock-out bad genes" would mean a 100% efficacious cure for all prion diseases, because no prion disease can affect PRNP-negative cells.

It's only too late to repent when you're dead.

It's not on the syllabus, but what application does jordan canonical form have to machine learning?

It should be "well-written communication."

This is only a superficial solution to the cause of these zoonotic diseases, which is overpopulation. The problem is that with 7bil people disease will spread with increasing frequency, and areas of super population growth like Africa and India will suffer the most.

But because no vaccine for any coronavirus had ever been invented, this new vaccine and the new techniques used to make it must be celebrated as a technological breakthrough. Possibly the greatest medical breakthrough since the 19th century. Possibly Nobel prize winning material.

What's more interesting is that the sum is periodic.