186 karma · joined August 27, 2013
If it didn't have character flaws, it wouldn't be operating at a "human" level. But if it does have these character flaws, how useful would it really be compared to a real human? Is the quest for Strong AI just a Frankensteinian desire to create artificial life?
I'm curious if there are any good papers looking into stuff like this.
It didn't, it was a bandage to cover the fact that Monopoly is not a very good kids game.
Now, that doesn't justify turning the game into a 4 hour slog, but it may help to explain why so many people use these "wimp rules".
I understand that LaTeX is a pre-internet piece of software, and thus it may not have been apparent that it's popularity would spread more through written than spoken word, but I still find this kind of thing pretentious (or at least a little silly).
If I named a popular piece of software "Kyei" after the Burmese word for "world", I feel like it would be kind of silly to get angry when english speakers didn't pronounce it "Chai" (The correct pronunciation).
I would recommend a language like Python, where simple data structures like lists and dictionaries can be created on a whim, freeing up students to tackle more fun problems.
And is there a good place to find a list of plugins? I've tried googling for them but I feel like there are probably plugins I'd use that I wouldn't think to google for.
Then I played Fill the Holes. Man. The mechanics and puzzle design there were great. Keep it up, I imagine you'll be getting job offers soon!
If it was a Kickstarter for an invention or a software product, I'd expect the presenters to be a bit more sedate. But given what she's selling, I think showcasing her personality helped make it clear that she's the right person for this job.
Furthermore, having coding exercises with a checker that can tell if you've done things correctly would help a ton when it comes to actually writing Haskell code.
I don't know enough about Haskell to pull it off (though I may try if no one's done it in a year or so). However if someone could inject the wacky sensibility* of things like LYAH, Computerphile and CodeSchool.com into a Haskell video tutorial, it would do worlds of good for the community. Better yet, if someone could make an interactive class like CodeSchool or Codecademy, that would be amazing.
* Thought I should mention that the wackiness isn't the only important part, it also needs to be properly paced. That was LYAH's other strong point, they hammer home each concept with multiple examples before moving on.
Now if someone tells the police that they've been getting incriminating phone calls, well then that seems like more reasonable probable cause, and doesn't strike me as morally dubious.
However, you really need to see the video to understand how viscerally awesome it is.
Lately I've been going back and forth between taking Udacity's Intro to Parallel Programming course (using CUDA, a C++ extension) and reading Learn You A Haskell For Great Good. I've found that while FP principles are cool to think about, they're also crucial for writing proper concurrent code.
If you write a kernel (a function executed by many threads in parallel) that produces side effects, you'll end up with a mess (since you can make no assumption about which threads will get to a particular part at which time). Furthermore, when you design parallel algorithms, knowing how monoids work is useful: you want to be doing operations that are associative and have empty implementations (+0, *1, AND true, OR false) so that they can be run in any order.
In short, Haskell forces you to stop thinking about the order in which your commands will be run, which is also a constraint imposed by parallelism.
It's truly the smallest of speedups to get over the pettiest of inconveniences, but for something I do constantly, having a watch is awesome. Even though the current crop of smart watches don't interest me, I could see myself getting a watch that makes other common tasks easier if it came at a reasonable price.
Prior to today, I was on board with the "smart bomb" argument. I think people arguing against the use of drones really need to focus on how they're worse than traditional warfare, otherwise people who hold the views I held will just tune out.