but I appreciate your comment regardless
3,786 karma · joined October 3, 2011
Occasional music-maker.
Frequent internet-builder.
https://matt-diamond.com
https://x.com/mattdiamond
but I appreciate your comment regardless
"decisions which they don't understand to be compliant" = "decisions which they don't believe to be compliant"
In other words, they understand that the decisions are not compliant. There's no contradiction with what you said.
> My recent experiences have slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death, which is due fairly soon, will be the end of me, though I continue to hope that it will be. (italics mine)
I do get the sense that many atheists not only reject God & the afterlife but actually don't want there to be a God or an afterlife. (I think Thomas Nagel wrote something along those lines.) I sort of get it but regardless I think it's very interesting.
I'm also not sure we're actually disagreeing on anything, so perhaps my reply was pointless. I agree that if you mix JS and TS in the way you describe, you'll have problems. My reply was just to say "yes, and that's not really Typescript's fault", but perhaps you weren't implying that to begin with.
* I'm aware that you can't run Typescript directly, but I hope my point here is clear... you're running a program that wasn't type-checked by TS.
However, if your point is that Typescript can lull people into a false sense of safety, then sure, I take your point. You have to understand where type assertions are coming into play, and if that's obscured then the type safety can be illusory. The benefits of Typescript require you to make sure that the runtime inputs to your program are sufficiently validated.
That explains how the team of 3 codebreakers got it, but what about the other codebreaker, Matthew Brown, who figured it out by himself? The article doesn't say anything about his approach. Seems impressive if he can match the effort of three cryptographers using their own custom software. I want to read more about him!
Technologies are themselves disruptive, as their introduction can shape human behavior. Choice doesn't happen in a vacuum.
It looks like she's a science communicator rather than a scientist herself. That's interesting... I'm not used to seeing academic papers that include an author devoted entirely to the writing aspect. (Then again, maybe I just haven't noticed?)
I disagree. I would say set theory is a foundation, not the foundation.
Which system is the "correct" foundation of mathematics? Does it even make sense to talk about correctness in this context? These are open questions and they're very interesting! Don't prematurely close yourself off to them by assuming that set theory's role is some kind of scientific fact.
This is a serious question. If it's possible for an A.I. to be "dishonest", then how do you know when it's being honest? There's a deep epistemological problem here.
Two different Popes drank Vin Mariani!
This doesn't make any sense... morphine is not a hallucinogen or a psychedelic. You don't "trip" on it. I have a feeling the journalist mixed something up here.
Still, it's funny to see how many people have attempted this! It's a fun programming exercise with a nice result.
Why is that f(n - 1)?
Pierre Duhem would like to have a word with you:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-underdetermina...
> Holist underdetermination ensures, Duhem argues, that there cannot be any such thing as a “crucial experiment”: a single experiment whose outcome is predicted differently by two competing theories and which therefore serves to definitively confirm one and refute the other.