tr352

The EU needs China. No green deal without Chinese batteries, solar cells and rare earth metals.

And then then the different kinds of the latter: angelic (locally or globally) and demonic.

So does the 74181 ALU.

In early 1995 I ran Windows 95 release candidate 1. I got it on CD-R from a friend. I had to spend my savings on extra RAM in order to get it running. For a brief period of time I was the coolest kid on the block.

Many of the later MSX models had a disk drive built in and came with MSX DOS. I was running MSX DOS on a Philips VG8235. I remember playing around with CP/M software such as Turbo Pascal and Wordstar.

> For example, in Bayesian logic: x AND y is xy, x OR y is x + y - xy

No it isn't. P(x AND y) = P(x)P(y) only in the special case where x and y are independent. Unlike fuzzy logic, probabilistic logic is not truth functional.

In addition to the other replies here, one fundamental difference between probabilistic and fuzzy logic is that fuzzy logic is truth functional and probabilistic logic isn't. Truth functional means, for instance, that if we know the (numerical) truth values of the propositions A and of B then we also know the (numerical) truth values of the propositions (A and B), (A or B), and so on. In probabilistic logic this does not hold. That is, P(A and B) is not fully determined by P(A) and P(B). If A and B are independent, we have P(A and B) = P(A)P(B), but in general we only know that P(A)+P(B)-1 <= P(A and B) <= min(P(A),P(B)). I also believe there's no generally accepted notion of conditioning in fuzzy logic, whereas conditioning is crucial in any probabilistic approach, see e.g. Bayes' theorem.

> P.S.: I only have 1 spot left in 2021 for personalized evidence-based recommendations.

Yeah right :)

Can you given an example of a bias that is correct?

This study was discussed in the article.

More like Wittgenstein's beetle-in-a-box: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_language_argument#The_...

ThemePark Corona edition.

Ranks represent subjective degrees of belief but they do not, like subjective probabilities, nicely map to relative frequencies. So compared to probabilities, ranks are indeed limited in this regard. For instance, you can learn probabilities from data but there's no obvious way to learn ranks from data.

But for subjective belief they're still useful. Consider the problem of diagnosing a system with components that fail in rare cases. However we have no idea about failure probabilities. We can then use ranks. A diagnosis for some observed behaviour would then be the least surprising (i.e., lowest ranked) failure state that explains the observed behaviour. This is also the reason for least-surprising-first execution: the most important prediction or hypothesis is the most likely one and thus the least surprising one. There are some concrete examples in the paper which demonstrate this.

I am currently thinking about combining probabilities with ranks so that you can reason about both kinds of uncertainty in the same model. This could be implemented using a programming language that supports both ranked choice statements and probabilistic choice statements.

Author of this work here (and a bit surprised to find this on hacker news).

I don't disagree with your point about probability. However, there are various alternatives to probability which can be more appropriate for certain applications. For instance, with degrees of surprise (or ranks as they are called) you do not need to know exact probabilities, although the price you pay is that the scale is more coarse grained. If you reason about events that are either very probable or very improbable, then degrees of surprise are easier to work with than probabilities.

There's also a computational benefit. Execution of a ranked program is done much like a non-deterministic program where choice points execute "least surprising first". Compare that with the sampling techniques necessary in probabilistic programming that do not even provide exact results.

> I also wrote code for a Z8000[0] in the 80's which is quite different.

The Z80000 seems to have been a very obscure microprocessor. Even more so than the Z8000. What was the Z80000 system you worked with?

The TMS9918 is as simple as it is beautiful. A couple of years ago I wrote an MSX emulator in Java for fun. A pretty accurate TMS9918 emulator took just a couple of hours to write with the original technical handbook at hand, in 561 lines of Java code.

https://github.com/tjitze/TMSX

Wouldn't count on it. Most people want to fly as cheaply as possible, also after corona. So airliners will keep on maximising seats per plane. Moreover, decreasing seats per plane will increase emission per passenger, so it also makes no sense from an environmental perspective. So it's more likely that you're going to pay more for the same "stuffed into a tube like cattle" experience.

This seems to be one of those things where the arguments pro and con have already been so endlessly hashed out that it’s simply become a matter of choice which camp you’re in.

Not sure we’re talking about the same thing here. I was replying to your claim that nothing in philosophy (apart from mathematics) can be formalized. The role of logic is not to solve the metaphysical problem of infinite regress.

> It turns out you can't formalize anything that doesn't have proofs -- in other words, it basically only works for what we'd call "mathematics" or "pure logic". You can't formalize literally anything else in philosophy, at all.

This couldn’t be further from the truth. There is a wealth of logics that have been developed and studied within philosophy, that aim to formalize various philosophical concepts. See modal logics, deontic logics, logics about knowledge and belief, and so on.

There has actually been quite some work since the 50ies up to the present day on deontic logic, which is reasoning about ethical concepts such as obligation and permission.

> How is "you are the product" incorrect?

I think the point is not that this statement is incorrect, but rather that it doesn’t accurately convey the severity of the situation. More accurate would be: “manipulation of their audience is their product”.

I go one step further and simply ignore any n=1 report about matters like these that I read through internet. The insight that "false news travels faster than true stories" applies more broadly and sometimes more subtly: extraordinary but statistically insignificant truths travel faster than statistically significant truths.

They write it's "interesting to note" the the IBM PC XT 8088 performed better than the PDP-11/23. I suppose the PDP was a much more expensive machine.

HN is a place for tech and computer science. I think most of the HN crowd will agree that the climate change situation is more important, as is the coming US election, racism, inequality, certain geopolitical developments, and so on. But I also think that if the front page and discussion panels of HN would be dominated by these issues, then most of the current HN audience would stop coming here. I know I would.

> Event the name "Boolean", could be changed to "Conditional"... and be even more readable.

Definitely not. The term conditional is used for statements of the form “if X then Y”, in computer science as well as logic/philosophy.

Delved into this a bit, and found some claims that there's no PPP driver for A/UX, so I guess there's the answer. I know about NetBSD. However, in my somewhat irrational mind, it lacks the cool factor of A/UX, the spiritual stepfather of Mac OS X (the biological one being NeXTStep, obviously).

Yes, it's the only compact Macintosh that does.

Head over to the 68kmla.org forum where the gurus are, and state the precise symptoms. Also, make sure you've replaced the PRAM battery as they will leak at some point and damage the mainboard, usually beyond repair. Same for old leaky capacitors, which leak their corrosive contents onto the mainboard, causing all kinds of nasty and hard to diagnose problems.

This is interesting as I’m trying to connect a Macintosh SE/30 that I recently brought back to life, without having to shell out crazy money for a network card on eBay. I wonder whether this TCP/IP over PPP solution also works under A/UX, which is what I want to run.