849 karma · joined February 26, 2018
@thealvaroduran
Check section 5.4.3 in the paper, where it proves it quite elegantly IMHO: https://raft.github.io/raft.pdf
The whole book engages in the same "projecting trends into the future", on the same topic. But in a more detailed way.
In fact, one of the early points it makes is that the Roman Empire, when the last emperor gave way to a tribe lord that invaded Rome, officially when the empire fell, everyone pretended it didn't.
Like the emperor is out, he's living somewhere else, but yeah the empire keeps going, nothing to see here.
Only years later, decades if I recall correctly, did the implications of the fall of the empire truly reached culture.
The shell was untouched, but the insides were rot already.
It is a great read, but I can't shake the feeling that it's about a bunch of sailors that, instead of going around a huge storm, decided to go through it knowing fully well that it could end in tragedy.
Is the small upgrades out of the question in this case? As in "each small one costs us as much downtime as a big one, so we put it off for as long as we could" (they hint at that in the intro, but I might be reading too much into it).
Edit: Wrote Allow the first time, good stuff.
There's also the problem with cards that are difficult to memorize, which is something that you don't know in advance, and that's a good thing! It shows you were you should pay more attention, write cards in different forms, etc.
The plot starts with the star character who wants to form a family, but when he asked adults how to have kids, they would all pull up the suspenders and sing "tralari, tralari" to evade the question.
And so the poor guy did exactly what he was told: pull his suspenders and sing, for years, to no avail.
I think LLMs are a bit like that: because they can't escape the world of text, they can't go beyond the reality that text is trying to be isomorphic to. Which means that LLMs are forced to infer answers in the context of its training data.
If LLMs were told that in order to have kids you, well, you know, right? Bees and Love? Then LLMs, asked about sex, would infer that the answer has something to do with apiculture and flowers.
But seriously though, taxonomies are part of the whole science enterprise. Unless we formulate hypothesis that can be used to predict new phenomena, we're missing out. Or just cargo culting.
In fact, in the very first sentence, they say that this view is no longer relevant. As in, for who knows how long, it was. Suddenly it isn't.
This framework for viewing ways of organizing society as equally valid and inconsequential defeats the purpose of what, I believe, social sciences are for. I don't need a taxonomy of options, I want actionable insights!
What I see talked way less is that the quality of new books, in light of this, is very bad. Most books out there that were published in the 21st century serve as business cards. Commoditizing the complement, they call it.
Well, you said it yourself: admonitions, AFAIK, aren't directives, and executives can and—of course given their incentives—will ignore them.
In view of this, it's hard to read this article as "why is Windows showing their stories and not mine?".
This reminds me of Tufte's "The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint". Highly recommended.
It dawn on me that the latter is precisely what people at Java do, and I've reached the conclusion that this way of writing software is enforced by Java developers who realized they needed to learn Ruby because their job prospects are better, and are simply retrofitting what they used to do in a new programming language.
Have a look at Anki https://apps.ankiweb.net/, the tool that I use to make memory a choice. See also Michael Nielsen blog on this: https://augmentingcognition.com/ltm.html
This is by far the WORST one line summary I've ever seen about that novel.
Isn't here the true relationship, rather than a made-up "sickness" called TIV (sounds a lot like untreated depression, but *no expert*) between safetyism and the constant barrage of clickbait-y, outrageous news we can do nothing about?
The only way I can see psychological safety effecting the eventual outcome of Google+ is someone who, being psychologically safe, would have said right at the beginning, "this is stupid, don't even try it".
On the other hand, believing that your actions have consequences, and that you will pay for your mistakes, is a very good assumption. But in the sense that you mention, it's "unsupported". This lack of evidence may lead me to conclude that societies are hung by a thread, and that collapse is imminent. It could be, but societal collapse simply hasn't happen after an unexpected, global, unprecedented turmoil.
Why some assumptions are "better" than others? THAT is a very good question. My take is that there aren't a priori: some societies believe some assumptions, and survive, and others don't. In a sense, to me, assumptions are only good in retrospect, and it's an idea that "feels" correct rather than something I can "prove".
That is not too far from believing in the afterlife, if you come to think of it.