The idea was to consider the historical criticism of capitalism in a modern setting (e.g., how effective is the market in addressing economic inequality?). The discussion got out of control, though.
908 karma · joined September 23, 2016
C++, compilers, reverse engineering.
Spanish, English, German.
Hard sci-fi, world history, postmodern novels.
Baroque strings, alternative pop/rock, ambient music.
mpiedrav [at] gmail [dot] com
The idea was to consider the historical criticism of capitalism in a modern setting (e.g., how effective is the market in addressing economic inequality?). The discussion got out of control, though.
For instance, in Costa Rica (3.4 million voters) we just elected mayors nationwide and received trustworthy results within a couple of hours (reported using a party-independent app).
Caucuses are also run by the Supreme Electoral Court. Kind of an Election-as-a-service.
Also, Ben-Ari's "Mathematical Logic for Computer Science" and Pierce's "Software Foundations".
What is the origin of STL? Has STL been conceived to be what it is now, that is "the" C++ Standard Library, or does it come from some other project? Could you tell us a history of STL?
Answer:
In 1976, still back in the USSR, I got a very serious case of food poisoning from eating raw fish. While in the hospital, in the state of delirium, I suddenly realized that the ability to add numbers in parallel depends on the fact that addition is associative. (So, putting it simply, STL is the result of a bacterial infection.) In other words, I realized that a parallel reduction algorithm is associated with a semigroup structure type. That is the fundamental point: algorithms are defined on algebraic structures. It took me another couple of years to realize that you have to extend the notion of structure by adding complexity requirements to regular axioms. And than it took 15 years to make it work. (I am still not sure that I have been successful in getting the point across to anybody outside the small circle of my friends.) I believe that iterator theories are as central to Computer Science as theories of rings or Banach spaces are central to Mathematics. Every time I would look at an algorithm I would try to find a structure on which it is defined. So what I wanted to do was to describe algorithms generically. That's what I like to do. I can spend a month working on a well known algorithm trying to find its generic representation. So far, I have been singularly unsuccessful in explaining to people that this is an important activity. But, somehow, the result of the activity - STL - became quite successful.
On a grand historical scale, the Powers That May at any given point in time become the main offender against those having something of value. Next time it'll probably be China (beginning with the "Security Theater" [1] in Xinjiang).
[1] https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2009/11/beyond_secu...
Britain and France had geopolitical and business interests in the Middle East since the 18-19th century. America since the 20th, when oil suddenly had all the spotlight.
Fundamentalists are convinced that "the West" is the Devil on Earth. No political force can pacify fundamentalists nor avoid future generations.
I'll focus on my CS major, even when I'll probably be over 40 when I finish (due to the several next crisis along the road).
In my last job, I found great joy in reverse engineering (interoperability with a quarter-century proprietary legacy system). I also find cryptography and cryptanalysis amusing (applied abstract algebra is nice).
I would like to focus on that career path. Job openings involving those areas are mostly security-related.
But I fear a possible toxicity in that adversarial role (i.e., last line of defense against a whole industry of malware and malicious actors). I can only imagine future burnouts and extended anxiety while dealing with the ever-increasing work demands.
How realistic is that gloomy scenario in InfoSec?
P.S. Cryptopals [1] and Dennis Yurichev's reverse engineering challenges [2] seem quite reasonable for practicing/learning.
There are plenty of Capture-the-Flag, Crackme, wargames, programming challenges, etc., but initially I'll do these.
BLL includes several categories on logic, though, which include classics by Kleene, Curry, etc. For instance, "Foundations of mathematics" [1], "Philosophy of mathematics" [2], and "Model theory" [3]
[1] https://www.maa.org/press/maa-reviews/browse?field_tags_tid=...
[2] https://www.maa.org/press/maa-reviews/browse?field_tags_tid=...
[3] https://www.maa.org/press/maa-reviews/browse?field_tags_tid=...
It turns out that the idea itself of communicating secrets in plain sight is called "subliminal channel" [1], which differs from steganography (hiding a message inside another message).
My question is not meant to imply conspiranoia. It's whether we as an audience of online forums have been fooled by this technique at some point.
[1] https://www.emsec.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/media/crypto/attachment...
[1] http://web.archive.org/web/20160413025405/https://developers...
I remember having done a "computer and society" assignment about 14 years ago on Google and China. I also remember Microsoft's "Halloween Documents" (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish) from early 2000s. And many other scenarios of Big Tech ignoring ethics.
In general, trust (like attention) is a limited resource to be used wisely.
The big concern here is how Google, etc. are becoming an oligopoly with a very effective lobbying arm in any form of actual regulation.
While the Western world holds democratic-ish values in public institutions, its large private companies are indeed totalitarian regimes.
The idea is to allow authors using LaTeX/PreTeXt to pipeline the document+sources to a repository (think GitHub Pages for math textbooks), as well as preserving existing free content whose sources are lost (e.g., old out-of-print books).
I used to be a sysadmin for a research institute using them. Both OJS and OCS performed reasonably well back then.
Technical options to systematically counteract predatory publishing like ACM and Elsevier [3] do exist. However, it requires plenty of institutional commitment and overcoming political opposition, as it boils down to enhancing researcher reputation in an effective way.
Building reputation almost from scratch vs. depending on established, well recognized publishers is kind of the perpetual FOSS vs. proprietary software conflict.
The argument from authority (e.g., publishing mafias) fallacy is ripe in academia.
Same situation with textbooks. Besides profit and trying to become famous, there's no reason why a professor should publish through a traditional imprint or publisher (Pearson, Cengage, McGraw Hill, Wiley, Taylor and Francis, Elsevier, etc.). LaTeX, a Creative Commons license, and a homepage at the university department (and perhaps a GitHub/GitLab repo) is all a professor needs to make textbooks available worldwide.
Writing and editing a textbook is indeed a hard task. Yet, having the end result behind paywalls and arbitrary pricing isn't worth it.
A software development business is not really about programming languages, libraries, or tools, but about the game of power in the organization (even when the end user doesn't care how the product was developed). Anything that threatens that power is easily dismissed.
[1] https://www.japantimes.co.jp
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:English-language_ne...
They might well use UWaterloo's CS Club infrastructure, which can withstand enough traffic. For instance, the FOSS mirror at https://mirror.csclub.uwaterloo.ca
https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/video-audio/Noorderlicht...
The new Microsoft makes money well beyond Windows: billing running containers and Linux (or Windows) VMs, GB/month of Azure Storage, GB/month of outbound traffic, Visual Studio professional subscriptions, and so on.
It's a clever strategy. Managers usually won't care/understand about containers, runtime environments, Active Directory, APIs, libraries, etc., but developers/devops folks do. By addressing devs, Microsoft is getting quite a competitive edge (no pun intended) in the operational part of enterprises.
Microsoft salespeople already address managers in terms of solutions in manager-lingo (synergies, CapEx/OpEx, yada, yada).
As for Fields medalists, they are extremely creative folks who can find new and effective ways to tackle seriously deep problems, even when doing things unrelated to math (swimming, hiking, etc.)
An ocean-shaped or a polymer-based "lifeform", while formidably uncanny, are still somewhat fathomable.
What about a radio-waves-based "lifeform"? Or a star whose plasma interactions are so complex that some form of artificial "life" emerges within it?
Lem's narrative is indeed intellectually teasing. And, yet, critical of our approaches and behaviors as a species.