logicrook

Thank you for this informative comment (where do you learn more about the interesting stuff?).

Isn't there a nice way to have it both ways, i.e. automate all changes in a script, and roll it after each image update? Assuming most things that may need to be hacked away don't see breaking changes after each update?

I don't even understand why this means to be said. Anybody who has ever tried to take a photo must have seen what a difference it makes with the direct impression. You see your black friend with your own eyes, but then in the picture he's just a flying smile; is it really cheating to modify the values?

Its not even "unnaturally bland images". It's just unnatural images, because nobody sees like a camera lens.

Is it supposed to be a Malevich? (FF45, Linux)

In Conway's book of numbers, there are many similar visual explanations for beautiful combinatorial formulas in terms of pebbles and polygons.

Overall it's a fun list, except for:

6. This is terrible for sex and sensual cuddling. You need skin contact. I'd say have a bathrobe ready close to the heat source so that you can sleep naked, but don't suffer from cold when you get out of bed by getting inside its heat.

4. It's terrible advice if you have trouble getting asleep. You should be in bed only to sleep, otherwise you associate bedtime with being awake. Following this advice worked wonder in reducing the time it takes me to fall asleep.

9. Naps don't work for everybody, and can reduce sleep quality for the temporary gain of efficiency, so I've mixed feelings about it.

You seem to have scheduled your life well, but I wonder how you manage things that break the routine. Friends, exceptional crunches quickly break the good patterns and I find it difficult to come back to cruise mode after a lost night.

Oh, thanks for the references. I'm constantly astonished at how people can think "filter bad words" would fix everything. In some instances of Tay tweets, there are comparisons between black men and monkeys. What words should you forbid? Black, man, or monkey? Should the bot be allowed to speak about people of color visiting a zoo?

As Linus said "the people have spoken, and most of it was complete gibberish".

It is true that in practice, you can't foresee everything that is going to happen in a practical experiment (you wouldn't do it anyway if it was the case). But it doesn't justify not enforcing clean research practice. If you need to move the goalposts, you can do it, it's call "adjusting the hypothesis". You make a new hypothesis and you test it properly. Sometimes you need to iterate a lot, and you fall into the risk of https://xkcd.com/882/. Which still underlines the importance of having a strict scientific approach.

I agree, and this was poor wording on my part. I just wanted to point out that this side of piracy ensure that a large part of the population would not benefit much from it because it won't bring them any good (e.g. education, practical knowledge, etc) while providing easy ways to waste away their energy.

The outcome of downloading research papers or educational content is not the same as downloading entertainment.

I write snarky comments targeting opinions that express my thinking in a concise and funny (for me at least) way. Then you come and tell me to fix my attitude, directly judging my person. At no point did I judge you or used ad hominems.

>But you'll get your point across better if you quit the snark, that is all.

I'm not interested in getting my point accross, just in having fun. People have different objectives. Why do you want so much to tell me what I should do?

Now regarding your #2, there are many links between TV exposure and bad school grades. Everybody on HN love to say that you must be a pretty idiot to read the dailymail or watch fox news, so a correlation between low intellectual content media consumption and low intelligence would harly surprise anybody. Yet you reply with "That's the funniest conspiracy theory", a logical fallacy intended to ridicule while avoiding to answer the argument.

As you see, the whole conversation is rather useless, so snark is good enough.

Yeah, the only purpose of that account is to make me laugh.

However, this isn't just gratuitous. Here the issue is similar with the sci-hub one: there's a fairly legitimate motivation for piracy, so there's a lot of comments over "free knowledge so copyright is theft", and a bit of "piracy is theft". But not all piracy is equal, and sharing knowledge (research papers, etc) is useful and participate into making people more informed, but the bulk of piracy is part of the problem.

1) It's diverting considerable effort that could go into free software. If you had to either pay for Photoshop or use a free solution, Gimp and Krita would get insanely more resources. In other words, piracy is a key element in closed-software dominance.

2) Popular movies and TV shows are made to keep people as uneducated imbeciles. So sharing research papers is not the same thing as what commonly falls under the "piracy" moniker.

That's what that snark meant.

Oh, this is so true. Get free access to Wikipedia, use it to download the latest popular movies. This is going to make them really clever.

The first obviously. As an analogy, imagine if we let people use knives freely. They might kill other people with them! Can you imagine if such things were not regulated by the government? Now imagine, words. They are, as the saying goes, even more dangerous than swords. So we need laws to regulate their usage. This will bring us one step closer to true utopia.

>rasits, but use Skyrim metaphors

Ok, so rasits=racist, but what "but use Skyrim metaphors" is supposed to mean?

>(it's a 4chan poll,

Oh, I thought it was the official Tay documentation.

>so for the love of Tay don't take it seriously)

What would "take it seriously" mean?

Are you too lazy to roll your own Greasemonkey script if it's such a problem for you? Are you just on HN to lose time, or too learn how to hack things?

Even if you consider filtering all the "bad words" and "touchy subjects", there are many ways to still say offensive things. The caption "so swag" for a hitler photo or the "escaped from the zoo" for obama do not use any kind of offensive word.

As long as we don't restrict ourselves to pure newspeak, dangerous ideas will continue to proliferate.

Well, computers beat humans at Go, and now that: it's clear that they have outbrained humans. We have to bow before such AI.

I'm surprised async web framework as old as Warhol, Schiele or even Dali can keep up with the modernities and constant advances of JS and html5. Aren't they too old-fashioned?

And how can Dali be more surreal than using a language designed to animate monkeys on webpages for writing full-blown applications?

Exactly, it means the same thing, never.

Oh, wow, thank you very much.

It's funny because I thought "you can't just copy and paste SO, there's a number of things to think of to be able to do it correctly". Guess I'm not the only one who thought that.

Anyway, most intellectual work is just applying known recipes (copy-paste, renaming a few variables), so it's just a matter of granularity and sources. The hate for SO copy-pasters owes a lot to the few beginners who don't understand that yet and take copy-paste literally.

Where can you buy this book? I want it!

Haha, to anyone who would want to dispel the latest AI hype, tough luck! A pop-science journalist made some ill-informed prediction 20 years ago, so your arguments are invalid.

Sometimes, you don't know that you don't know. But you don't care.

I don't know if you're in TCS or an applied branch, but my experience with TCS labs is that at most 10% of the lab (postgrads and teachers) are able to use some versioning system.

Not a joke: courses supposed to teach programming are organized with Dropbox and email attachments.

Random models are very hard to analyze, so people rely on using very basic models - a good example is random graphs, where there is still a lot of research on the very basic Erdos-Renyi model, even if basically everybody is aware of its shortcomings regarding an accurate portrayal of real-world data (none). But it's a model where it's possible to get some good bounds for many problems, basically the only such model, so it's good for papers.

But how those "scientists" deduce things on the real-world based on these simplistic models is utterly unjustifiable. In many cases, we know that some statistical properties show the models are inadequate, yet they still dare to write their BS about how "the internet" or "social networks" work based on such trivial models... (and the media disseminates these idiocies, like Ted and Wired...).

Sad!

> I expected that everybody would publish latex files (raw source, not PDFs) in computationally accessible formats, with raw data in easily parseable, semantic forms.

Do you realize that many researchers would be ashamed if others saw their latex code?

A friend worked for a journal, he kept a folder of the worst that he had ever seen, and could rant for hours one some gems. Including some papers that were beautifully typeset, about elegant combinatorics/type theory, and were coded on the latex equivalent of a spaceship cobbled with recycled plastic bottles, scraps and duct tape.

Do you imagine going through thousand lines macro tex file that grew over the years, when Latex is one of the worst mess ever, with conflicting packages, absurd syntactic 'features', and legacy crippling flaws that make debugging an horrible task?

Please, continue to compile your .tex.

>"widely thought by experts to be impossible" (13m2s) a few times through this piece. Which cryptographers and cryptography experts think, in 2016, [...]"

You take a John Oliver quote, and it contains the current year? Come on.

Looks cool. This is really a great work, it has probably been the pipe-dream of many programmers.

In mathematics, there are fairly few such 'meta-results', and each one is duly celebrated as impressive; the one that comes to mind is Curry-Howard correspondence... but in more 'traditional' maths, it's very hard to find general high-level translations.

There are many cases where automatic syntactic low-level constructions can bring huge improvements, in compiler design, etc, it's more that they are less susceptible to be directly useful to laymen.

Well, you mean the Zen of Python's "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it."

In any case, even then, people think in different ways: you can model a problem via category theory, geometry, algebra, and those would never translate into the same syntactical constructions, since the abstractions are of fundamentally different natures.

Now I think mostly in a functional way, so my Python code is full of small functions to help write "pythonic functional code", e.g. the function iff(b,x,y) that returns x if b and else returns y. The resulting code could be translated algorithmically to a functional language in a very natural way; the internal def would be translated to where clauses, etc.

The point being, I want to be able to think in the way that is the most adapted to tackle a problem, even if the code seems to be written in two different languages. This is no different from mathematics where each "X theory" is essentially its own language and each implies its own set of natural theorems.