lidHanteyk

Reading the abstract, this seems to be a claim on P vs NP. Specifically, that P != NP. The claim goes through the front door, using descriptive complexity theory, claiming a formal system for P and then claiming that SAT can't be expressed in that system.

The main observations focus on broken symmetry. Polynomial-time algorithms often have to start by choosing some unit of work, but without a requirement that work units be ordered; therefore some choice is required in order to pick a starting work unit. For example, to process a graph, one usually must start by choosing an edge or vertex without limitation.

The claim is, effectively, that SAT requires significant choices to be made in which direction to compute in order to solve its instances in polynomial time.

I confess that, although I've read the proof, I neither am convinced by it nor can find problems with it. I need to study it more.

I'm not sure how the barriers are handled. The relativization barrier, I can imagine, is handled by showing that abstract state machines with oracular advice can turn seemingly-insignificant choices into significant choices, so that the proof doesn't relativize. I don't know about algebrization, though.

In terms of Impagliazzo's five worlds, this result would indicate that we are in Minicrypt or Cryptomania, as is commonly believed already.

What they're trying to get across is that this is not a Bad USB [0] attack, but an Evil Maid [1] attack. In either case, the attacker does not need to rush. To commit a Bad USB attack, the attacker deputizes you and uses your confusion [2] to get you to insert a dangerous peripheral device, on your own time. In an Evil Maid attack, the attacker patiently waits until you trust (read as: "are vulnerable to") their physical presence, and then inserts a dangerous peripheral device.

To use your analogy, in the former case, the murderer poisoned your food at the grocer's, and you unwittingly dose yourself when you make your meal. In the latter case, the murderer spends time getting to know you and letting you trust them, and then one day, when you go to the bathroom, they come in and shoot you like Vincent Vega.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_flash_drive#BadUSB

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

[2] http://www.cap-lore.com/CapTheory/ConfusedDeputy.html

I think that you're smart enough to grok a slight nuance to point 1; it's a Monte Carlo simulation. Being non-repeatable and having to average results is part of the definition of the simulation.

All code is trash, but not all code is trash for all the same reasons.

Aha! It's because we are talking about the value of a laborer, of a plebian, of an everyman. The value of the typical person, to some society, is the labor that they can provide to the society. Money is the only way that society can estimate the value of people. This might be a foreign way for you to look at people, but it's common in the Marxist worldviews.

In other words, society doesn't care what you're doing when you aren't working, as long as you're leaving society alone. Thus society has no real reason to pay you just for existing. We might demand that our society put money in everybody's pocket, as a way of creating a capitalism which respects humanity, but it is not strictly necessary, because money is not strictly necessary for a society to exist.

You've been downvoted, but it's worth pointing out exactly why you're wrong: I am talking about salary, which means that folks are compensated not based on a number of hours spent working but on the overall impact that their work has on the organization.

Also, I have been salaried several times in my life, and in each case, I was expected to do various things outside of a 9-5 "workday" sort of framework. Without being too self-oriented, I think that I earned the salary commanded. I've never been compensated even $200k/yr, and my highest is about $150k/yr. Even those of us that are well-paid and well-respected for our work are not paid enough to justify the time that we lose to work.

Labor's value does not come from its output; I am not talking about economic value. I am, rather, talking about opportunity cost; for what amount of money would I spend time, my only personal and non-renewable resource, on anything besides what I want to spend it on?

This is a common misconception. Flat Earthers aren't unintelligent, as your wording implies. They are misled and miseducated. Indeed, humans have roughly been at their current level of intelligence for a hundred millennia, and show no signs of either getting especially smarter or dumber.

Since I anticipate somebody appealing to the Flynn effect [0] or similar improvements in intelligence-testing scores across the recent centuries, I would head them off by mentioning Spearman's hypothesis [1]. The obvious reading of the hypothesis is horribly racist, but we can take its contrapositive: If there are largely no changes between humans in recent millennia, then the differences in testing scores are due to cultural biases in the construction of the test and the education of people. And it happens to be the case, due to pedigree collapse [2], that we can be mathematically confident in the homogeneity of humanity (to say nothing of confidence from molecular biology [3]).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearman%27s_hypothesis

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

[3] https://www.nature.com/articles/ng1435

Interestingly, I see these behaviors most often in pseudoscientific and fringe communities. For example, in the Flat Earth community, there are constant appeals to various bogus arrangements of mathematical and physical principles, and an insistence that all evidence is being considered in a scientific manner.

Consider: You are worth about $10mil, in terms of labor. If you work for 40yrs, from 20 to 60, then you are worth about $250k/yr.

Conclusion: We are underpaying nearly everybody in society.

Regardless of whether Redis is meant to hold ephemeral data in memory, it is well-known to anybody who has had to maintain a Redis instance as part of their deployment that Redis is only effective when used for ephemeral in-memory work.

I understand your defensiveness, but please understand that because of your massive experience with Redis, either you have never lost data with Redis, which means that nobody besides you understands how to run your software in production, or you have lost data with Redis, which means that it's somewhat hypocritical of you to insist that Redis is durable.

Assuming mental disorders exist, sure. But there is also evidence that a sufficiently technocratic government will use psychoactive drugs indiscriminately on its population in order to coerce and control them [0][1][2][3]. We must demonstrate somehow that mental disorders not only exist, but that their classification is due to science, and not due to bigotry and a lack of understanding [4][5].

Your example of SSRIs is an especially poor one, as SSRIs are well-understood to have been developed by the pharmaceutical industry as part of a panpsychic wellness package which is meant to be sold pill-by-pill to the public [6][7]. SSRIs today are like sugar in the past [8], with a corporate army of compensated scientists ready to study the noise and find useful results from harmful chemicals.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra

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

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

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_involvement_in_Contra_coca...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Man...

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_serotonin_reuptake_i...

[7] https://twitter.com/jcbonthedl/status/1159823784242753537

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_marketing#Influence_on_h...

Be less of an advertiser, if you want the attention of folks. Show them what you can do for them, not the latest trinket that you want to trade for cash.

I find it very revealing that you didn't post links to your first few interactions on Reddit. What happened in those doomed threads and under that deleted user? On your current thread, somebody tells you bluntly that you're advertising [1], and you indicate that advertising, to you, can be balanced by novelty and popular appeal. However, please keep in mind that popular appeal is manufactured by advertising, and that all new things are novel; advertising is not a damage to society that can be so easily cancelled out.

If you want to understand your audience, you might start by examining SCP-1471 [2], the object of your Reddit critic's affections.

Edit: From a game design perspective, if you don't make something that's fun for you, then I don't know why you're so surprised that a third of your users are already tired of it. I don't see, in your post about how you designed your game, much of a consideration for fun or ludic immersion. Have you played your game for hours upon hours? TBH it sounds mind-numbing.

[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/SatisfIcing/comments/ge6x0g/i_made_...

[2] Warning: SCP. http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-1471

It is interesting how powerful the meme is which prevents discussion of psychology and psychiatry amongst the laity. Multiple threads started and died on the theme of being a layperson and not an expert, despite the fact that any science should be examinable on its premises, observations, models, and theories.

Meanwhile, the Dodo Bird theory [0] has yet to be disproven, and there are good reasons to suspect that humans are merely smart mammals, rather than special animals who have no peers throughout the rest of the kingdom, which means that psychology and psychiatry are only the tip of a much bigger comparative discipline which handles humanity as a special case rather than as the main system of study.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodo_bird_verdict

Let me fix that for you: If you're willing to strike, you must be willing to do so under the real risk of being murdered [0]. If you're new to this history, the Coal Wars [1] are a good starting point.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worker_deaths_in_Unite...

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

There's also the viciousness with which strikes are broken in the USA. We are no longer in the era of Pinkertons [0], exactly, but Reagan still fired the air traffic controllers [1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_(detective_agency)

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

That's not where your original goalposts were; you were talking about historical retrospectives of the USA in particular. You've now shifted to whataboutism [0] in order to try to minimize the USA's misdeeds. Meanwhile, I've already shown you what's in existing encyclopedic materials covering recent USA history. What, precisely, do you think I've failed to articulate or contextualize? Do you think that the USA's torture, war crimes, and mass surveillance are somehow excusable merely because other states also commit such atrocities?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Or, you could zoom out and look at a pattern: Intel's failure to care for the safety of their employees is analogous to their failure to care for the safety of their customers, in the sense of Meltdown and Spectre. In both cases, upper management prioritizes the bottom line and reinforcing the status quo, despite the fact that the world fundamentally changed and thus their practices should change too.

Look at current encyclopedia articles covering these topics [0][1][2][3][4][5] and see for yourself what sort of facts are headed for the history books. Parent is being very gentle on our neoconservative, neocolonialist, fascist, disappointing legacy.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

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

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

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_Group

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St...

Oh, agreed. I am fairly anti-Christian, and I don't mean to say that cops should be held to higher standards when they're pastors, but more that it is despicable that a single person should both claim to be a source of moral guidance and also a tool of state violence. It reeks of theocracy.

Fascism is the cloak used to conceal the dagger of ethnonationalism. To quote a memorable video introducing extremist ideologies by explaining what life in those societies is like [0], "In the fascist village, the village itself looks really bad. The villagers themselves are doing pretty bad. But at least they all know they're not one of those other types of villagers." It doesn't matter whether races exist; they will invent races, and then use racism to justify hatred and oppression.

You are thinking of fascist corporatism [1], indeed a much more pointed critique of the USA's political practice than traditional fascism. But also, "traditional fascism" goes only back as far as Fascist Italy, which practiced corporatism, so perhaps all fascism is corporatist.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ymg5FsruGEk

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Fascist_corporatis...

The words "by wearing that badge, they're the chosen whites" [0] keep going through my head. It disgusts me that the cop who is also a pastor has no problem with their conduct.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGV1xYJFAEI

Fair enough. Let's just turn Amazon off, then.

That's just how some people are. For what it's worth, I can't look at anything I make and be happy with it; I only see the flaws, omissions, and infelicities. If you can be proud of what you make, then great!

Nobody cares either way, though; code ultimately has its own notion of quality, and human aesthetics are totally unrelated to code quality. We all must learn to think like computers and appreciate code like computers do.

By definition, worker coops are never acquirable by private controlling interests; they are always employee-owned.

Let's compare quickly to a Brand X. I'll choose string theory. Concrete forms of string theory have been proposed, and they predict surprising things that folks could not have easily predicted; in particular, supersymmetry and multiple compactified dimensions are concrete predictions that could be tested with particle accelerators, and we have tested (and rejected!) some supersymmetries this way.

String theory also predicts some things that are congruent with existing theories but, by dint of building them differently, gives different predictions for how they work. In this, we get new explanatory power. For example, string theory predicts fuzzball black holes, giving a resolution to the firewall problem. All string theories have tachyons, which is surprising but would not be the first time that they've shown up theoretically, and they solve some questions about spacetime (while opening many others!) Some string theories have photons and gravitons, which can unify our existing conflicts between GR and QM.

And, crucially, string theory admits narrowing of conjectures and explanatory regimes. It's easy to take a string theory, combine it with an observation from a satellite or a particle accelerator, and conclude that no, the theory was wrong. Horribly wrong, completely wrong, totally wrong. String theory is actually sufficiently formal that the current source of realizing wrongness is from "swampland" critiques, which are merely observations that a working string theory ought to pass some basic arithmetic sanity checks.

Sure, maybe my conclusions are premature. As a cousin comment notes, though, a particle theory that doesn't immediately spit out the Standard Model is a little suspect, and one that admits basically any model of particle physics is also a little suspect.

Wolfram's framework is unfalsifiable and contains no new explanatory power. That alone should be sufficient to show you why folks are so skeptical of the claims. Combined with the fact that he introduces new terminology and refuses peer review, this should give you reason to expect that there is a simpler, more canonical, already-explored branch of theoretical physics which covers the same stuff.

I wish that you had linked to the material that you didn't "get anywhere with"; without it, it's hard to actually examine the quality of the underlying arguments. I found writeups like [0] which seem extremely well-argued; the formal ideas come from [1], and the core idea is Bell's theorem [2]: there is some essential non-locality to QM, we can experimentally see it, and so we can't just say "oh, it's all a big computer", even if it's a computer with interestingly high dimensionality or interconnections, without further justification.

[0] https://www.singlelunch.com/2020/04/23/why-stephen-wolframs-...

[1] https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/nks.pdf

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

Whose ideas? His employee, as usual, came up with everything. Wolfram just put his name on Gorard's work, because that's what Wolfram does.

Edit: Downvoters, got evidence? Here's Gorard's papers [0] [1], and Wolfram is clearly taking credit for this work upon which only Gorard's name appears. Gorard doesn't do themselves any favors, by name-dropping Wolfram constantly. Almost as if Wolfram employs Gorard and pressures them heavily to incorporate the name-dropping...

[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.14810

[1] https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/so...

Please, go on; what kind of verification do you want? How would you like to see this codebase improved in order to bring about that verification?

You can't have your cookie and eat it, too; the browser has to store profile information or cookie information either way, so this was never about statelessness. This is about the expectation that user agents will not just consent to server tracking, but carry around papers which will identify themselves to each server so that they can be better tracked.

I still liked PHK's suggestion for removing cookies entirely from HTTP/2 [0]. I seem to remember that they advocated for instead having the user agent send a profile ID which is only meaningful to the user agent. That would allow the server to know which requests belong to which profiled user, but allow the user full control over which profile is presented.

[0] https://varnish-cache.org/docs/trunk/phk/http20.html#beating...