garba_dlm

what if we take earth to be flat but "flat" in the sense of 'euclid-ness' like in a Manifold[1] ?

or maybe we gotta work on accepting that it may be possible for two completely different, even opposing theories, to explain similar things? (in completely different ways?)

it's just that one is easier (for some use cases) than the other one, and to fight over which is right is all wrong. I think that in the future the whole debate will be understood as an instance of the blind men and the elephant[2]

but we just don't have the mathematics (nor the philosophy...) for this. either it's not invented or it hasn't managed to become widespread

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

yes, that's right, I just tried to apologize for flat earth. your cue to downvote me away from sight. maybe I just want to make bridges... impossible bridges... between suckers lagging but still trying to understand and others who refuse or are unable to explain

here's the kicker

it's all connected to an organic deep neural network

which means that the specific arrangement of the physical wires doesn't matter. because there's a training period in which the neural network literally learns to control the body anyways

> if you want to solve the problem you do not want to create more problems by solving it.

but if, in contrast, what you want to create is a business

then it's easy to argue you actually DO want to create more problems; partially so you can "solve" them in "the next version" (or something); this way your "customers" (which really are looking more like victims) can have a real motivation to upgrade; to buy the next version, to keep on being "valued customers"

this is why making tech products used to be very different from making consumable goods (e.g. food); right up until all businesses turned into subscriptions businesses and other kinds of rent-like schemes

WOW

all I can think is how all those gears have all those ratios

ratios which are all somewhere in the stern brocot trees and which can be written as finite continued fractions

I wish I could think about what this means in terms of compilers

games are a new medium

you're right that software engineer and programmer types (of persons) would do well to learn form other older media formats that precede games.

but let's not pretend that games are anything like what came before.

interactivity is a new element to put into the storytelling toolkit. but the point is how games can do a much more than tell stories; it's like puzzles are part of the story somehow... but answering how exactly goes quite deep.

stop mixing together actions meaning done (or doable) deeds, and statements such as speech

an extreme example would be to ban all fictional writing because of the actions some reader may possibly take due to reading a about some terrible awful action.

would it be possible to induce the vibration of the metal piece (assuming it's magnetic) without nails?

using very rapid magnetic oscillations (like a speaker??)?

I think the electronics would be different, but is it possible?

but they're using the 'same' obsolete philosophy as the founding father used when writing those things

so it's correct that they do this, else they would change the meaning behind those words.

what is needed is that congress approves new philosophy so they can use it to make better (meaning up to date) laws which are appropriate for this technological epoch

and what is needed for that is that the academic community comes up with new philosophy

and what is needed for that I do not know

and impossible things difficult (hence no longer impossible)!

> they are already thinking of things in the realm of the possible.

very astute observation. Now I'm left wondering how this comes to be?

what is it about the way in which a general CS practitioner's approach to problem solving that grounds the potential ideas (of how to solve problem) into the computationally decidable?

but it also fails on the very philosophical framework used to come up with those laws

they're using philosophical frameworks older than digital computers; which is ok, and is as should be. up to the point where those ways to understand fail to capture certain qualities of computers and digital technology which break the whole notion of copyright and have been doing it for a few decades now.

those lawmakers are using obsolete philosophy!

but we gotta wait until they all die off, is not like people, specially older people, are willing or possibly able to change how they think

I blame digital technology, it just doesn't work like the rest of reality does...

I will never get used to this geo-determined internet (i cannot see the phone's page without a vpn)

is like we developed this new amazing inter-connection network. and then due to politics, decided it was much too good... far too much freedom without national barriers, so we've gone on to reintroduce these barriers.

as if the internet was restricted by the same geographical (physical) realities that we commonly encounter.

but nothing will ever be as dumb as the re-introducing material scarcity (DRM schemes) back into the 'cyberspace' just so a few can keep making money out of what they already did; possibly for several generations of descendants

as a person who has wished they could have studied microchip design, I assure you that the fact there are so little people able to do that is no accident.

the less people can do it the more valuable the skill is, or maybe they're really smart people and I just ain't got what it takes.

i'm still working on understanding lattices better

but i can imagine, based on my own ignorance, creativity, and lack of correct understanding, would be some kind of factorization.

as I think while trying to better know what's a lattice, I imagine a lattice like a coordinate pair, but instead of each coordinate existing on a line, they exist on a binary tree (or some other directed graph explored from a root outwards without cycles)

which means you have two such binary-trees (not necessarily binary, but it's just easier to work with them seemingly)

and then you combine these into ONE lattice. so then, to de-lattice means to recover the binary trees.

but when I say binary tree I'm thinking about rational numbers (because stern broccott trees)

but this is more over the top, so this has outpeaked previous show

I just find it sad that it's things like these that make it impossible for the layman to figure out what is going on with, for example, Mochizuki's new stuff

I have no reason to doubt that a lot of math has been made more difficult than necessary just because it is known to give a subtle military advantage in some cases, but this isn't new;

it's an attempt to bridge the language

because you're right, the people that own this stuff (and work on these companies) are used to thinking in terms of large transmission-interconnected facilities.

so my take this move has most to do with how to bill people, and how to collect payments and pay taxes on said payments and so on. I expect that the actual electrical engineering is treated as an implementation detail

another perspective to the shared thinking is that if a lion is charging at you in the jungle, there very first thing isn't conceptual; it's just fear which will immediately coordinate any mammals in the group to run or prepare to fight.

I say this because I know some dogs are able to learn the ball thing too, oh and the fear thing is part of how i communicate with my dog.

lucky me I'm speaking in English.

also, what does informatics have to do with philosophy, andor phil. of engineering?

turns out there's no philosophy of engineering!

IMO, this is also why we have "computer science"... as if computers were found in nature and we were trying to 'reverse engineer' how they are made; which is ridiculous!

engineering, technology, computers, are not well covered by neither philosophy of arts nor sciences; if anything math's philosophy gets closer; but it's just a branch of phil. of science.

because twitter's real purpose is to manipulate its users and the issue is how this is more obviously the case now than before

it used to be more important that users remained engaged, which in twitter meant people got to interact between themselves as number one priority.

but now, the main priority is to manipulate opinion more directly, so users interacting among themselves is no longer the first thing you're served.

I guess i'm trying to point out how twitter changed into subtly manipulating its users as the main thing; before they would only intervene directly to avoid witch hunts and things like that.

but now (with Musk) they're after money to be made by directing popular opinion, but they're noobs at this (FB/instagram are the real masters for now). This makes enough MORE money that advertisers become less relevant; and even user engagement suffers a little.

this gets to constitutional levels of danger when they intervene personal communication. But the internet has been doing this a lot nowadays; I have direct experience with reddit (shadow)blocking me from interacting with other users deep within nested comments in controversial threads; they're stiffing human-to-human conversation and pretending they don't do it; but this is just blocking... unleash the bots to really drive people's thoughts towards intended places... lest people do it on their own freewills

and this is probably why and how it comes to pass that the taxpayer of the future is left holding the bills

nah, but the way in which ownership over media works right now (20th century style) cannot hold.

media itself will adapt, change, morph or something

you know that semi-old saying "if you're not paying you're the product"

well it's subtly wrong but points in the overall direction.

the capacity to manipulate this kind of stuff, to sabotage ideologies such as EFFs privacy ideology IS the product.

governments spend money for this, it's a product from governments to other governments.

though I suppose this is an instance of FB dogfooding

nonetheless astronomy is doing fine https://english.news.cn/20230928/5929e14fe40b4c939c1f8194e0b...

I refuse to learn anything about any propietary technologies unless you pay me for every minute I spend doing it. and I'll probably get right on to forgetting it if you stop paying me, but won't really cuz my memory and experience are mine and Severance (tv series) is still fiction

what we really need, is for "engineering" as a discipline to rise to the same status as arts and sciences.

computer science is not real. computers are not found in nature. they're not a natural object, hence the methodology of study (from a philosophy of science standpoint) cannot be the same.

similarly to how math is not subjected to experimentation; but to intelligibility (a modern math proof is accepted if mathematical "peers" understand it and agree with it). so can't computer be subjected to experimentation as a matter of studying them. they're not found they're made. so the "experimentation" is really end-to-end testings; a philosophically distinct practice from a physics experiment (which is often just measuring something extremely precisely)

maybe I should ponder on the "philosophy of chemistry" which also blurs this line between "making" and "experimenting"???

you jest about making a religion (which funnily RMS also does); but recall that Academia (and RMS is an academic) was started by religions, which means if there's a faculty of computers, then it already IS a church... an academic church 2.0

I think it's impressive how he saw a danger, a possibility some 20 years before it was even a feasible technical reality

referring to his story of "right to read" or something like that about books being able to get deleted of your bookshelf... and then Amazon making this a reality some decades later

> I'm just sad that there's no young people to pass the torch for when the time comes and the founding fathers are no more.

yes there are; but also not really.

due to my age cohort I'm see my self as this "next generation" software scientist/engineer who is aware and believes in FOSS and "liberty minded software";

I suppose most of use are millennials but the whole generation-label stuff is not accurate so maybe in the USA this next gen of people are a bit older but in other poorer countries they're younger???

in any case I think a lot of younger engineers got swayed away from the FSF/GNU ideological stuff by means of 'being pragmatic' which is just a consequence of when the open source movement distinguished itself as different from the free software.

I think the impact of this may have something to do with leidenfrost's appraisal that there's no next-gen to pass the torch to.

it seems like us millennials do not rally, we don't come together into any kind of social movement or dunno.

are senators in USA a lifetime position?