158 karma · joined October 6, 2013
If you have it, you are a genius.
Knowledge don't magically jump into the brain of people.
The most important part about knowledge is not its raw packed informative formalism but the teaching, or letting enough leisure time for people to study by themselves. It is the art of letting people build their own intuitive understanding. No computer, no books, no things can replace a good teacher, or a a good book that suits you.
That is why we need to disagree ;) dialog, and then agree again. Because, maybe dialog is a way of learning.
Like knowing non linear problem (like estimating the cost of resource "per user" on the cloud with all their "discrete" rough edged pricing plan) cannot be solved with linear algebra.
The cloud, the cost of IP transit (95th percentile) are defeating by nature any possible estimations. And still I see PhD and geniuses trying to code with linear equations the pricing based on the evolution of users. This is mathematically impossible.
So am I a genius, a dunce or what? I would be glad to know I am wrong, I would stop wondering.
However, I do feel it is necessary: even a limited person can improve by taking all of the juice of the most simple basic maths. I cheat, I use real world out of computer science simple solution in my code.
I noticed the "good student/developers" who were talented tend to solve problem the complicated way. And they developed both an agility and comfort zone out of it. So that my way of helping them saying: «hey man, programming is not about writing code, it is about solving problem with well known, basic understanding.»
You could call it «revenge». I call it irony. And if my words could hurt someone, since I am way more moderated than what I had to cope with, then I consider I am nice.
I won't apologize.
How can people do computer science without this knowledge? It is needed for
1) solving equations;
2) transforming 3D vector and then projecting them on a 2D space (a screen) ;
3) text indexation;
4) resolving graph problem (like drawing a CPU based on declaring connection between "wires"...
5) and with dual space you access even more fire power (fourier, laplace...);
6) clustering db is homeomorph to a balanced n-partition of a graph;
Geometry is one of the most powerful tool prior to the knowledge of any programming language in computer industry.
Would you trust this unstable "pragmatic" house of card to deliver its promises of being "working"?
This should be quoted on the internet by the way.
The web is a regression in the art of typography; not a single browser proposed to stop all this absurdity such as pixel based measures. Not a web page respect the rules of typography, not a single font is "nice", we have to drop accents.
Typography are sets of rules that are well codified, but the we put the burden of enforcing typography not on the computer, but on web designer (line spacing for instance).
Web is WYSIWIG, it should be What You See Is What You Mean, and computers that have so many CPU power should do their job of automation and take care of the part of the presentation that is both hard and that can be automated: typography.
The web is archaic. A web page is just a stupid port of the stupid "physcical page with boxes in which you put content". The abstraction of web page is a shame compared to all we could provide: automatic versioning, true separation of the content and the styling (yes I think of latex or wiki), something to make bibliography when quoting an URL automatic and complete (who, (c), legal conditions for reusing, scientific informations, related articles...).
The web concept is conservative yet progressing irreversibly towards a de facto standard that brings less advantages than a pure paper system (think of the cost of conservation of the content over time and the cost of maintaining server operational+permalink).
At one point, we will have to erase data from the web, and the knowledge will be lost.
What will have been the benefit of internet when you see you can still consult the first book printed by Gutenberg
Now, takes Forbes top 500 fortunes of the world and tell me how much people are not xth generation dynasty kids.
I love Bill Gates he has a lot of merit, one of which is being well borned.
We do have a meritocratic system, but this system is biased because he is mainly accessible through birth.
This is the definition of a society based on casts. We are regressing in the name of a so called "liberalism" that looks like the "communism" of Lenin : an implementation that contradict the purpose.
Our political systems are wrong implementations of good ideas. How can we repeatedly fail that much collectively?
In the rough French revolution context is basically the same as today: * huge debts contracted by gvt; * unfair repartition of the fiscality (the 1% wealthiest don't pay in proportion to their income); * producers (the 10% wealthiest) are not able to produce anymore because fiscality is to high;
The convocation of "tiers etats" that triggered the revolution was about asking how to make the repartition of fiscality more fair.
the 1% wealthier said we don't care we don't pay and you can't change the system anyway because we make the rules and they "mouhahaha"ed The remaining said, okay, are you losing your head (saracasm and irony)? and they said to the other europeans 1% (germans, brits, dutch, spanish)... Oh btw, we are not a kingdom anymore. As a result, we dont have anymore debts. Go fuck yourselves
The banks were pissed off and they said: WUT! Debts are to be honored, if people begin to think that money don't rule the world the world is doomed.
Thus the coalitions against France, battles (Valmy), Napoleon tricking Italia in Republic and then betraying them so that the bankers got another ennemy ...
And here we are, in the same situation again.
Le baron de Beaumarchais (famous writer and weapon smuggler) that lobbied the french monarchy for helping the US revolution was clearly doing it for the sake of freeing the people from monarchy (he was one of the philosoph supporting the strange idea that merit matters more than birth rights).
You should really read more. Especially 'le mariage de Figaro'
Freedom in USA and France is decreasing because citizens are not involving themselves in the functioning of the Republics we live in.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I am actually in a phase of archeology where I read a lot of rob pikes, ken thompson, ted nelson, linus torvalds, esr ... (http://harmful.cat-v.org/) and I begin to question myself a lot of things. Even the statu quo.
At work I deal with a lot of dependency hell (system and distributed software requirements, confinments (VM and chroot or jails)) and I begin to doubt some of "the wisdom and progress" I have been adopting.
I search for answers now because I think some old "conceptual bugs" are bitting us very hard (like the way http url are built, threading, shared libraries, the abuse of concurrency) and I don't know anymore what progess is.
I just kind of feel status quo is a very old hard rock band that should be forgotten :)
We should tolerate trolls and love them because in the minority of this population maybe master troll bringing up new ideas.
The fact I am a troll does not mean I am a genius, nor that I have any interest lobbying for the usefullness of trolls :) But I think the non troll way of discussing is creating trolls: using fallacies, not accepting strong logical criticizes that can enforce an idea, the ad hominem based on authority rather than the construction of arguments, the lack of passion and sometimes humor that comes with.
So my point is trolling is beneficial to every communities, and it should stay fun.
systemd introduces a major PITA for the OS packager by putting a lot of dependency on a lot of parts with "moving components" making it both more vulnerable as 1 and more likely to fail (it is not complex it is complicated).
Systemd also tends to become a system requirements for a lot of packages making it unsuppressable.
It makes the problem of dependency solving logically totally messy without justifying this cost by any real improvement.
It is introducing the DLL hell for the most crucial part of the system (PID 1).
So now, they reformalize exactly the so "rigid" ISO9001 they were trying to throw down.
What an irony.
Why did Feynman said Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts?
For the same reason this bitch is crying: because the truth does not belong to a minority of self decreted "savants", "erudits" or "experts", but it is the result of a fruitful dialog amongst people which purpose is the emanation of truth. The ethic of discussion is purely "anti-religous", it states no one knows the Truth and only logic, and dialog on a peer relationship can work.
Well, experts raise themselves above the crowd as if they were a hierarchy in a dialog. As if authority counted. They are wrong. If you cannot make a consensual point whether you are wrong or right does not count, because if people cannot accept your point, your point will never be accepted.
People average education raised. Average jobs now include a high level of autonomy, design and thinking.
Even Mc Do's jobs are more creative than you think : they have to deliver unique menus (watch at the combinatory of items) in standardized way (time and tools) and they must plan new supply chain for each customers.
Expert are now not the only one to have to use their brain at high level every days.
The should stop insulting people's education and call themselves our peers; we all are experts and I don't know for you but I recognize one and only one hierarchy: not the one based on status (expert) but the one based on ability.
Knowledge is not a state: it is a fucking process.
So I am thrilled to hear this guy acknowledge we don't need him around.
The expertise is dead, long live to the knowledge
My reasoning is the following : NS also describes non linear behaviour (turbulent flows that are sensitive to the initial condition thus that may result in solutions that looks like white noise).
Linear algebrae can't be used to solve non linear phenomena and thus if a solution is looking like temporal noise, I guess the fourier of the time serie would also would like a solution with a density of probability that would be constant on all spectrum of frequencies that are compatible with the physics (no energy travel faster then the speed of light, hence, there is an upper limit to the frequency).
Am I stupid to expect non linear algebrae involved like Liouville theorem ?
Usual tricks are: - reducing one degrees of liberty per symmetry (this can involve creating abstract symmetries); - making 2 coupled dimensions uncoupled by introducing perturbations that tends to 0; - making weired assumption on the form of the solution (definite, continuous, and derivable in all points) because if you are not in quantum mechanics, your solution rarely accepts discrete change of values);
Thus I am intuitively thinking the navier stockes solution cannot be found by a mathematician. I was pretty much expecting an approximation of the solution by a physicist because it requires the kind of free spirit accepting to make hypothesis that normally makes a mathematician have an heart attack.
The physical solutions tends to be a subset of the mathematical equations. Physicists tends to discard solutions that would involve the world exploding every time a fluid is flowing (I don't know why).
Am I the only one that noticed that Maxwell Equations are looking like a weired simplified sets of Navier Stokes equation in a case of a very weired perfect gaz? (viscosity = 0, compressibility = 0, and a weired twist about vortex (rotational seems related to vortex), and at the opposite of NS a time dependency on two fluids (E and B) that are kind of independent but dual (rot and div meaning seem to be swapped in their role for B and E), and a ... weired kind of coupling on B and E over time?)
DivE = is expressing the compressibility RotE is expressing the vorticity of E ...
And the funniest of Maxwell law is that at the end they seem to be relativistic (c is appearing in the equation of propagation and is the limit)
Man, I so would like to see a geometrical interpretation of the maxwell equation as a dual space coupling, so we can use intuition instead of math to solve it.
I so wish I had time to study this... I would really try to solve NS by first solving Maxwell. :)
I am betting the solution as for relativity is involving at least one non euclidean geometry. In fact since it involves "time" I could call it not a geometry (wich is time agnostic) but a dynametry :)
The equivalents of formal axiom of geometry describing formal solutions of canonical "dynamic space" that would be attractors of stable solutions and rules to transform them.
Needless to say at the end, of these war neither Athena nor Sparta won, because they both lost.
Plato's Republic is a simple HOWTO turn a democracy ruled by citizens into a system claiming to be ruled in the best interest of the citizen by a minority of "Wise men" with an elite of watchmen that enforce the power.
Read Alan Moore's "Watchmen" for a criticize of the republic (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
Pericles(or Solon (don't remember) before Athena became a Republic said the same thing as Eisenower: beware of the richs that want to get a grip on a state and extend their power through their influence and will use military power for expension.
Nothing new under the sun. The guy is reinventing the wheel
The other contributor made his point by pointing it is just an argumentum ad autoritatem.
Then I discovered that wikipedia was turning with NPOV (I had some fights) into an authority : the validation of a NPOV is made by a team of recurrent contributors who have bias (like believing that when someone claim to be a researcher in their page like them it must be true even if we cannot check the real identity of the person).
Every system of knowledge and cooperation tends to be plagued by the emergence of an "aristocracy" of self declared experts.
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts (Feynman).
On the other hand, for now WP is still sane you can still open a claim that this article is violating NPOV. Because that is the case.
Redactors will study your case you might even be winning because you are stating the obvious : it seems (in my opinion) it has nothing to do with an universal non biased knowledge.
Even if I had a grudge with WP that may back your claim, I won't actually agree with until you signal this article as NPOV.
Here is your entry point for making what is right : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view...
Think of PGP, adding a new key toyour browser, creating a certificate, adding an exception... Always unintuitive CLI.
In terms of UI, I still don't get why for firefox a clear text password other an unencrypted connexion is not worse than a self signed certificate (it should be identically considered dangerous).
The only crypto UI I can use is ssh.