kd0amg

My sarcastic internal monologue while loading the article: "If multiple players use systems thinking, which one wins every time?"

> The only way to define non-computable things is to use excluded middle or choice. There is no other way. At least not in the underlying type theories of proof assistants such as NuPrl, Coq, Agda and Lean.

Meanwhile, ACL2 has the excluded middle and can still prohibit defining non-computable things. It needs termination analysis in order to do so, but these type theories rely on that too. Is the forgoing the excluded middle really gaining you the guarantee of computability?

That comparison would fit even better if we acquired Cu/Ni/Zn at the same rate no matter how much energy we spent on mining it.

You definitely are an edge case if you were already paying your utility bills in cryptocurrency. Otherwise, you spent fiat currency to bootstrap your use of Etherium.

I've found KSP to have a lot less "one more thing" than Factorio. There's not as much opportunity for "I set out to do this, but first, I need this other thing, which I can almost get if I just add one machine over there and then reroute a few conveyors..."

Quantity of ads seems more like a decision for web site operators to make, balancing the wishes of viewers and clients. If a site's ads drown out the content I go there for, I'd give up on the place, but if a site's ads are "too relevant," I'd probably keep going there.

My guess would be their system decided OP's measurements were unrealistic and adjusted them towards their more "typical" body shape.

> I wonder why multiple people read his comment as pro Pinkertons (pro AMZN etc.)

Because "this is common practice" is often used as an argument that "this is reasonable."

And as a follow-up, what of that "else" is taught to a majority of university students?

> Clearly I'm missing something in my logic

Sampling methodology. Every ad impression in your sample was shown to the same person, but the ad industry is interested in billions of people.

> Or, in the market, bet on it, and you'll see who wins out.

This is a fine way to settle debates about the health/viability of a publicly traded company, but it doesn't help much when the point of contention is a question of law.

Writing a lisp interpreter in J won't really do more to help explore J's syntax than writing anything else in J. It might be a good way to explore how J handles tree-like data, but that's not really something J is designed to do well (if you really want to use an array-oriented language for tree processing, Aaron Hsu's dissertation covers a range of techniques that are more scalable than the naïve nest-of-short-boxed-vectors approach typically used in J).

They are right to be frustrated about not seeing the abstract material connected to concrete applications if your course's title is "Differential Equations for Electrical Engineers."

After trying this flaxseed thing, I could get an egg to skate around in the pan while frying in a small amount of oil. In the long term, it's still more hassle than I want with all the flaking.

It is: https://about.fb.com/news/2021/01/responding-to-the-violence...

When you take away someone's right to pursue legal remedy for violations of their rights, they effectively have no rights left.

Having had it explained to me later, yes, but when I first heard the term I thought it was a rebranding of standalone desktop applications rather than something that involves servers.

This entire thread is about how to use a BB oracle to solve halting (and why that means BB is uncomputable).

You probably shouldn't try to use Messenger over a shortwave connection.

I've been blacksmithing long enough to have arguably too many knives.

> My main contra-point to Lisp is that with all the meta programming powers you get, you write yourself into your own little corner where no-one but you and your friends live. You want advanced syntax highlighting, linting, automatic refactoring for your special features? Write it yourself!

This is contrary to my experience (though I've mostly used Racket rather than Common Lisp). Tracking what's a function vs macro, where an identifier is introduced/used, etc., is all baked into the underlying language and not something I have to write myself for every language extension I make.

> You want outsiders to participate (think: new employees)? Write all documentation yourself, too!

Were you planning to not document your internal-use utility code?

I'd push that a step further and say the problem is about data that's been rendered into a different form for human readability. The plain serial text of a magazine article exists in principle and likely wasn't written with ideas like column splits and image-wrapping at the front of the author's mind. 2sk21 advocates shipping that serial form instead of something image-like. That's what's machine-hostile about PDF: it makes the least semantically significant parts easy for the machine to discern at the cost of obfuscating the really important ideas.

Though as a counterpoint, separating content from presentation is already a fairly common practice.

How about that the format strongly encourages use of 2D representation even for fundamentally 1D data?

I got the sense that they did try to put in that minimum but misjudged how high the bar would be. They sent in their "we hired enough people so give us the money" message, but then (unexpected, I suspect) scrutiny by some civil servants revealed that they hadn't hired enough.

RPG is substantially more chill than this in person, so I'm inclined to file it alongside the scsh acknowledgments.

Shallow knowledge isn't a moral failing either. Most things I do for fun benefit from shallow knowledge of something else that I don't find intrinsically interesting enough to study deeply.

This is stated directly in the episode that introduced them.

What would it take for you to care about politics? What sort of issue would have to be up for debate?

Slightly pejorative in that it suggests a result that's less effective/streamlined/economical/whatever than had the new part been included (or at least accounted for as a possible extension) in the original design.

Yes, the active parties in the fight are two HFTs jockeying for latency advantage, but the scope of the fight goes beyond HFT: they are fighting over use of a scarce public resource.