tree_of_item

You cannot just "turn them off". What exactly are you going to do?

I take it seriously because it echoes a sentiment I've seen expressed previously. If you're interested, I believe this post outlines the idea: https://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2018/11/logic-explainability...

The tl;dr is that physics is not necessarily explainable, however much you want it to be. So it's very possible that the underlying phenomena of reality is simply out of reach of theories (i.e. it's incompressible).

> That's tantamount to saying that his theory is not based on data, logic, or even sound reasoning, and cannot be proven. Pretty much the definition of a crackpot theory.

You misunderstood the post I think. It's not proposing a theory, or even a crackpot one. It's saying that maybe the underlying phenomena is out of reach of theories.

Well, that sort of reaction to "out-there" ideas is kind of contributing to stagnation, don't you think?

It's public housing. They're poor, and sometimes immigrants who don't necessarily speak English well. They don't have the time, information or resources to do all of this.

Yeah, but I'm saying your answer was wrong. It works fine.

It seems to be pretty clear that it is related to fingerprint recognition systems. I'm not sure what you mean.

Why do you think this? Crostini works fine on low end Chromebooks.

The parent asked for a Lisp dialect. R is not a Lisp dialect. It's ridiculous to claim there's a "Scheme" in R. R is not Scheme, it's not even close.

You didn't even read the post you're responding to, you're just repeating what they said.

What is obvious about that image?

Refuting the Strong Church-Turing thesis: http://www.engr.uconn.edu/~dqg/papers/strong-cct.pdf

It's not clear that all physically realizable things are Turing computable.

Why is it wrong? If the oracle can only identify a certain class of nonterminating programs, you still get a speed up by doing so.

No? You're not even disagreeing with the parent.

No, not correct. Why do you think it's okay to immediately jump to an absurd conclusion?

There's value in being able to modify the software you're using. That doesn't mean you throw out absolutely everything every single time you want to appreciate that value.

No, you read it wrong. They are not trying to prove anything, they are discussing the possible origins of the object.

This looks like a nice project, but I have a nitpick that I just can't drop. That phrase annoys me so much: "like a text based mini-web". Do they mean like a text based mini web browser? What is a mini-web?

You're misunderstanding: you browse with JS disabled by default. Random sites shouldn't be running programs on your computer. If you trust the site, you whitelist it.

The example in the article creates a thread. Is that what you mean by "starting a worker"? Because it does seem to be able to do that.

It's not just YouTube. Twitter and the rest are vulnerable to the same problem. The whole idea of humans socializing on the internet is vulnerable to this.

Yeah that's the part I don't get: how is Google "manipulating" the comments?

And the article is not about kids; if you made it to the end you'd see implications for e.g. the November midterms in the U.S.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. That Google is editing people's comments, and that's the real problem?

I thought the article was insightful and brought up a relevant issue, and I'm not sure what boat you claim it's missed.

> A class is something everyone can read and understand.

This is simply not true. Your post is very strange, you just assume classes are simple and boring but everything else is 10-20 files with fancy magic and blah blah blah.

The truth is that Dan is wrong about what makes code boring. Immutability is boring. Dan just likes Go.

What is worrying about that useState/setState example? The person just didn't read the page properly, it's not an indictment of the API. Maybe give it a month or two before the claims about confusion, this was just someone skimming the page and missing some details.

And yet it's true, since they haven't been used in the way they are now. There was no DeepMind in 1943. Computer science stuff usually takes a few decades to mature.

> The department argued in its memo that key government agencies needed to adopt an explicit and uniform definition of gender as determined “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.” The agency’s proposed definition would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with

This seems entirely reasonable. I'm okay with this.

And the answer is yes, the benefits are worth the price, provided you have a way to analyze a given page to determine whether or not it's a part of that multinational corporation botnet.

The way to solve this is static analysis. I'm not giving up on the Turing machine, so we'll just need a way to analyze a given machine to determine whether it falls in to your low power use case.

I love the fact that there's an OS-in-OS. It makes writing cross platform applications with easy distribution and access to rich APIs very easy.

The fact that what is a necessity? New data structures? Why wouldn't you expect new data structures in absolutely any new environment?

No, I think that's the route DeepMind and the rest went with. Jeff Hawkins seems to want the more biologically plausible model.