144 karma · joined July 24, 2023
Yes, I agree, but like I said it's much harder to find what these are and create experiments to show them. I'm also saying the theory part is more than the math formula, it's the explanation.
There is according to the academic circles I participated in, although it wouldn't surprise me if most physicists you meet wouldn't know that.
One framing of determinism is that you can only choose from the options in your head, weighted by your preferences. Both your preferences and those options were acquired through your experience, so how can choose anything other than what your experience already influenced you to do?
It's fine to disagree, but do you find that "incoherent" and "self-evidently false"?
Theories are the explanatory part to explain why a law or correlation occurs. The law can be falsified, but I think you're right, that it's very hard to falsify the theory portion.
> Running 3000 processes is a few orders of magnitude less than running 1000000
I didn't decide on the limit, my OS did. So they must think it's unreasonable.
> Running on MacOS, but I've run this in Linux.
Well your test works fine on linux. MacOS is not designed to run large multi-process server loads. Linux has specifically optimized forking and context switching for processes.
> Why do you think you know every use case?
Why do you think you can't handle most cases by using processes? The goal isn't for a tool to handle every use case, it's to handle a specified set of use cases well.
Python itself doesn't work for every use case.
Looks like we are safe to ignore overhead of launching processes for programs with fewer than 3000 threads.
> Thank you obviousman.
I wanted to compare context switch, you decided to measure something else. I am pleasantly surprised anyway.
$ gcc threads.c
$ time ./a.out
real 0m10.097s
user 0m0.035s
sys 0m0.239s
$ gcc process.c
$ time ./a.out
real 0m10.168s
user 0m0.579s
sys 0m0.347s
Also, spawning is not context switching. That's the overhead that matters. But according to your own test, spawning in reasonable numbers will be about the same.
What field did you move to?
> The level or kind of work ethic in the population has been about the same over time.
Or
> Children have been about as well behaved over time.
Can anyone justify why these things should remain identical? That would suggest that environment is not an input into that equation.
That's what I said. But it's really not much. I'm afraid we will need numbers now to continue the conversation. If I measured would you be open to changing your opinion? Or are you committed to this topic, so that it would have no bearing?
> Baseless empirical result that probably was p hacked
This to me seems like the biggest regression in science. It's all heresy which is very hard to re-produce or learn general lessons from. It feels like disparate social science methodologies are being used to study math.
Nobody is going to look back and benefit from these papers. I often bring up to ML folks limitations proven in the book Perceptrons and wonder how their models differ. I have never gotten a response.
They don't.
A few other things they seem completely unaware of:
- other ways to represent functions besides neural networks (harmonic analysis, polynomials, etc)
- other models exist besides neural networks. ie. if you can model the problem with a simple equation you can just optimize that.
- polynomial regression.
Someone who has read "numerical recipies" is probably more capable in solving ML problems than an "ML software engineer".
But the overhead of a context switch for a thread and process is very similar. The main difference is whether memory is shared by default.
It can't for the same reason python can't - every part was designed without it in mind.
> Python already does support it
The language runtime might have it in a branch, but the vast majority of C code it is based on, and the scripts themselves assume otherwise.
> fast single core machines
Once again, if you are using python as a scripting language, with C libraries, and spawning processes, you are already utilizing multiple cores without any adjustment on your part.
> CPU bound workloads become ever more important.
If that's true, then you shouldn't use python. It's about 100x slower than C. How much performance can you squeeze out of dividing work into cooperating threads, that can't be easily achieved by having multiple processes.
In the "web application" example you are using, the norm is already to have many processes to handle incoming connections.
I can't believe this narrative is still repeated. "influence" can mean almost anything. In the headliner 2016 story, it meant a few based Russian organizations bought several million dollars of targeted Facebook ads. That's what broke democracy I guess.
In Assange's case it means he released existing emails which reflected negatively on a candidate. In that past most of his released material has negatively reflected on republicans.
The US has an interest in, and is "influencing" foreign election 24/7 365.
Prisons are already an idealistic institution, in the interest of being more humane. The alternative before was capital punishment, work camps, or slavery (including in war). That's not to say prisons are ok in their current state, or can't be improvement. I just don't think rehab was historically the primary intent.
A similar misunderstanding exists about SQLite and concurrency.. but that's a topic for another time.
That's definitely not what humanism means.
No I don't think this conversation will lead anywhere. Goodbye.
Generally atheists claim to be skeptical of all religion and mysticism regardless of whether it claims a "creator god". If you want to be pedantic and say someone who believes in ghosts, but not God is still be an atheist, well ok.
My point is that almost all people hold unexamined beliefs as non-material and unscientific as any religion. Hence they are not inherently more rational.
> be excellent to each other
I think the rule you are describing is not well defined at all. Are you treating them well because it's right, or because it's a benefit to you? If it's just comfort, then it only makes sense when it's convenient for you, or likely to be reciprocated.
Should you do what makes other people feel good? Or what is actually good for them? After all, it "sucks" when people try to make you do things. How would you know when to violate your rule of being "excellent"?
I guess it is useful to know when someone can't entertain hypotheticals, make light conversation, lacks sensitivity about other's world view, and is allergic to beliefs which are not promoted by large organizations.
I'll double down. Yes, I think all of these that have been practiced by large groups of people and demographics have had some utility of some kind. Their explanations for why they work may be completely wrong.
> divination through the study of entrails and birdwatching;
Note that this poster argued the value of astrology indirectly. It's not the stars, it's the value of thinking about personality.
One explanation of this is that entrails are a kind of canvas for a Rorschach test that allows the individual to examine their thoughts. Or perhaps just making time to examine the entrails gives them time to ponder in a quiet environment.
I'll give one more example which is divination rods, demonstrated to not be able to find water in controlled experiments. However, the current explanation for their usefulness is that it gives the user an opportunity to observe natural clues that suggest where water is.
Not a lot of people are emotionally invested in divination rods. It's safe to speak poorly of them and just suggest more direction tools. But in cases where many people derive meaning from it, I think it's best not to disparage.
I have only met a few "true atheists" -- people who do not deeply believe in some narrative that provides meaning and exists outside of the material world.
I don't see why you would have a superior mental model about subjects you are not intimately familiar with the details of.
It seems pretty relevant to me. The comment was also positive, applauding this policy for actually trying to identify improvishment.
I don't see how you could describe this point as "culture war", "negative", or "flamewar". I suspect you just don't agree.
What's unfortunate about HN is that when enough people disagree, those ideas go away and others aren't aware they are even being expressed. The intent of these moderation features is to remove low quality content, but it's almost always a filter for ideology and sociability.
I can't count the number of times I have been reading an interesting comment or submission, and suddenly its flagged and completely invisible.
- accepting fewer students (having strict requirements).
- failing students out in early classes (fewer opportunities to retake classes).
- more professionally focused and shorter curriculum.
- less class and subject choices
- the degree commanding significantly less earnings
For whatever reason, the best students seem to end up at a few top European schools (like Oxford) or go to the US.