> I found the arguments essentially rehashing rather old, tired talking points without adding anything new
> All he did was take a contentious topic and give the pot a very thorough stir without adding anything new (IMO).
Since none of the points are discussed as part of the topic, within Google (as he stated and Google then characterized as hateful), it's hard to understand how your mind comes up with some of these opinions.
Racism would be the immediate claimed motive, by multiple organizations, with or without evidence. That's the clear implication of the OP. How you choose to suspend recollection of the typical news cycle, seems a lot like noise farming. If you have nothing to add, just being disagreeable isn't very interesting and makes you look overtly biased.
It would be a lot more useful to apply the tactics used to attack Trumps "racism", since similar tools would be employed. Facts are not as compelling as they are portrayed.
This story stinks of hand waving. Just because someone realizes that "account access" means "account access", doesn't mean it's high level access. When you add finer grained controls, you get middle tech who's sole job is to vet access (now the lower level just performs a bit of social engineering and it's old status quo).
David Barksdale's story is a low level employee with low level access. If the application needs frequent adjustment at the account level, of course you hire a bunch of cheaper-than-average labor to perform the routine tasks. This generally includes broad access to the application, because customers expect that access to be available to the vendor of the service. The customer not recognizing how they are probably the common case that was farmed out, is not cause for alarm. It's a pragmatic approach, which is why it's always been this way.
> remember PHP initially stood for "Perl Hypertext Preprocessor". > Took everything about Perl that was good and shot it, leaving only the bad bits behind.
Historically, it did the opposite. The youth tend to be disparaging about successful efforts they can't replicate.
Consider the points being made before dumping your kneejerk responses.
>> has value solely... > Gold has been using that strategy for thousands of years
That is incorrect. Gold has tangible value, insofar as it has unique physical properties that are in demand. This is also true of diamonds (although synthetic diamonds have DeBiers trying to pretend there is a tangible difference), which is not the equivalent situation. Keyword, "solely". The bank valuation of types of debt is getting closer to the pure speculative situation.
> For any negotiation to succeed their has to be something both sides want.
"Everybody is looking for something." - The Eurythmics
Posing a hypothetical wherein someone doesn't want something, is ridiculous. Power can mean "endangering your safety", if that makes more sense to you.
From a neurological perspective, this is a simplistic view. One personality, seems more appropriate.
"A person is not a single entity of a single mind: a human is built of several parts, all of which compete to steer the ship of state." - David Eagleman Jordan Peterson has also said as much (I don't have the exact quote). I'm sure there's more than a handful of papers, to find, on the subject of personality composition.
> Cutting a brain in half does not make a difference.
I think it almost always does (excepting where a subsected half is nonfunctional/disconnected already). Now those parts of the personality that are not in control, aren't fully in competition. This irrevocably changes the personality (sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly and varying vectors).
> Kids, never apologize to people who feel slighted on other people's behalf.
Never apologize to people who feel slighted in any context. You cannot control for how other people feel and are not responsible for them or their experiences. Words are not violence. Words are the first alternative to violence. The moral perversions to the contrary, that have begun eroding western culture, are poisonous to reason.
My solution does not satisfy as a solution for n queens in an n x n board for many different values. Notably, there is no solution for n=4, n=3, n=2.
The problem is deceptively easy for n/2+1 placements. Once past that, it takes an increasingly (maybe infinitely) complex perturbation to get a stable algorithm as size increases. See 8x8 below, where 8/2+1 placements are algorithmically simple.
Finish out with a sort of bounce-redirection of the "knight moves" every time you hit a boundary: 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 Queens. Simple enough except deciding when to "bounce" is one problem, and what direction change is another (-2y +1x or -1y +2x).
The gymnastics (logical rules necessary to fit queens properly) continue to grow, the larger the grid gets. As illustrated, the problem is verification more than coming up with general solutions (that are only approximations that fit a set of sizes in practice).
If you were able to come up with a relatively simple general solution, it's not very hard for a computer to calculate 1mil x 1mil grid (https://www.quora.com/How-many-operations-per-second-can-a-computer-do-How-is-it-related-to-GHz). If you can parallelize this problem (which will do so nicely), the processing time of that experiment won't be noticeable. Proving that it's properly parallelized is another NP problem.
> That's not what you said at first, though. You don't even know what you believe.
I'm very sure I do.
> You said that people should be able to force other people to listen to them
No, I did not. - "a way for any message to be heard" is not the same as "anyone should have to listen". One is an available channel, the other is a forced acceptance of content (or something?). I really don't understand how that interpretation can make sense conceptually. My ongoing responses to serviscope_minor may clarify the issue.
> That's stifling speech in some form and it is absolutely not immoral.
This is the core of what you object to, as far as I can tell. I think you missed the important element of your own example. They said it, you heard it.
The consequence is obvious and practical. That's fundamentally separate from your own allowance that they might vocalize something to you. As social creatures, all humans accept that human vocalizations are both expected and worth interpreting as part of a subcortical network like in other primates. Even when some of it is bad, more is better because the otherwise immoral actors do not benefit as much as the moral actors (also there are usually consequences for the bad actors). This is a characteristic of the species, which is partly the basis for my morality interpretation with regards to the virtue of unrestrained speech. Maybe we're equivocating about what "restrained" means, but I'm talking about the initial conceptual physical restraint. Then I make the leap that proximal communication is equivalent (putting someone in a cell isn't much different than duct-taping their mouth) QED - there is a moral imperative to have a channel that humanity can communicate on without a priori restraint, in the face of ALTERNATIVELY making a tacit acceptance of the status quo (restrained speech existing via proximity). This all fits within my moral framework of spoken truth as the highest value in service to humanity (the US Constitution is nice and all, but I don't derive morality from regional legality).
> no you have no... moral or ethical right to say whatever you want where ever you want whenever you want.
I still think you misstated this and I've laid out my reasoning, the best I can and you are perfectly sane to reject it. I can hope that some of this is bordering on interesting to you.
> Your right to free speech does not in any way trump the right of others to not listen.
I have not proposing forced acceptance of content. I have proposed that there should be a channel available that is optionally accessible by all. The internet is the beginning of such a system, albeit not yet accessible by all. It might be useful to think about the fact that about 10% of the population on the planet, has an IQ under 90. Similarly, there is no channel for say a member of the Saan (other than physical speech) and that necessarily limits the audience. I get that you don't really understand the precept anyway (so you feel that you need to reject it explicitly), but Tor is a hellishly complicated thing that does not meet the criteria of accessibility in many ways.
> Truth is relative (truth is not the same as fact). > I disagree. That's partly true, partly not. Some people believe lies, that does not make those lies the truth.
I am not talking about facts. What's factual and what's not, is a different issue. Lies are not truth, but white lies are a kind of truth. What truth means, has to do with human experience unless you're just going to dispense with trying to separate the meanings because you don't want to engage into epistemology. As an exercise, think about the statements: "the wriiting of Shakespeare contain truth" or "the Mona Lisa can reveal a truth". There's nothing factual in those constructs, but people can derive meaning from both (depending on the person). For sake of argument, I'll just agree that people have different beliefs and leave it at that for simplicity. It was really a warm up to explaining my morality from a deeper philosophical level.
> Not all confilcts can be resolved peacefully
Would you agree that generallly, you try communication first, as the preferred method? Even if it's just a warning? I think the shoot first and sort it out later approach is antithetical to western culture (ie the golden rule). I'm not sure of your specific beliefs, but I'm making an assumption about your sig, which may be in error.
> Are you advocation the position that solitication of murder (a type of spe
> So yes the system works and no you have no legal, moral or ethical right to say whatever you want where ever you want whenever you want.
Whoa there. I would definitely say you have a moral right to say whatever you want where ever you want whenever you want, in some respect. I would even go so far as to say it's moral that you should have a way for any message to be heard.
Truth is relative (truth is not the same as fact). Personal truth is based on experiences, biology, psychology, etc. Then maybe choose to add that speech is the preferred conflict resolution method (to violence or shame) when negotiating reality of truth. Admittedly, competing assessments of truth cannot necessarily be completely resolved and there's a frustration with that, everyone feels. Out of this, I find that stifling speech *in any form* is immoral to that end, regardless of the legal underpinnings. It's an integral part of our practical efforts to progress toward some resolution of truths, for the human culture at large.
Granted, many articulations (shitposting), are not practically, philosophically or even temporally useful. There's a moral truth that emerges from that observation...among many others, that would not necessarily be identifiable if we interfered with a series of filters or qualifications. A complex enough logical system has an indeterminate end state, per the halting problem. Trolling, fake news, or any number of other incidental and malevolent purposes are all valid ways to express truth (discovery of fraud is the revelation of the weakness of systems, paradoxically). People's interpretation of reality relies on feedback loops regardless of how frustrating our conceptual mismatches along the way.
I whittle down my feelings to a single assertion that's relevant to the subject. "It's always useful to have an unrestrained channel of global communication". Such a mechanism is not immediately available to everyone today and reddit is obviously not a suitable proxy for that axiom. Saying that it's immoral to have some form of unrestrained speech is a conceptual misstep, from my perspective. I think we're slowly correcting it in a haphazard crucible of tests in the internet over time. The idea that the internet routes around censorship might be seen as a metaphor for the actions of progressively moral individuals, to that end YMMV
> Dr Jefferson added: “There is a $1,000,000 prize for anyone who can prove whether or not the Queens Puzzle can be solved quickly so the rewards are high.”
It's not the solution that gets you the prize, but the proof that the solution can be done quickly (without exploring nearly every permutation).
I learned to program before I was introduced to formal logic or any math beyond arithmetic. I don't know why these would be considered a prerequisite, when they are not a necessary prerequisite.
Toady won't live forever. Moreover, what he has produced is very difficult to build on without his participation (specifically tracking combat). As a superior talent in a number of fields, I'm sure there's plenty of lessons to be learned from the code about scaling very large, application development, from a solo developer perspective.
Slashdot Mirror
> Well, by reading the memo, for one.
So that isn't rehashed, by the standard you set. The mental gymnastics you employ, are staggeringly transparent.
> I found the arguments essentially rehashing rather old, tired talking points without adding anything new
> All he did was take a contentious topic and give the pot a very thorough stir without adding anything new (IMO).
Since none of the points are discussed as part of the topic, within Google (as he stated and Google then characterized as hateful), it's hard to understand how your mind comes up with some of these opinions.
Racism would be the immediate claimed motive, by multiple organizations, with or without evidence.
That's the clear implication of the OP. How you choose to suspend recollection of the typical news cycle, seems a lot like noise farming.
If you have nothing to add, just being disagreeable isn't very interesting and makes you look overtly biased.
It would be a lot more useful to apply the tactics used to attack Trumps "racism", since similar tools would be employed.
Facts are not as compelling as they are portrayed.
This story stinks of hand waving. Just because someone realizes that "account access" means "account access", doesn't mean it's high level access. When you add finer grained controls, you get middle tech who's sole job is to vet access (now the lower level just performs a bit of social engineering and it's old status quo).
David Barksdale's story is a low level employee with low level access. If the application needs frequent adjustment at the account level, of course you hire a bunch of cheaper-than-average labor to perform the routine tasks. This generally includes broad access to the application, because customers expect that access to be available to the vendor of the service. The customer not recognizing how they are probably the common case that was farmed out, is not cause for alarm. It's a pragmatic approach, which is why it's always been this way.
So they can hire them, when they do. Until then, continue on. Fear of the future is not a reason to stop making money.
> remember PHP initially stood for "Perl Hypertext Preprocessor".
> Took everything about Perl that was good and shot it, leaving only the bad bits behind.
Historically, it did the opposite. The youth tend to be disparaging about successful efforts they can't replicate.
> Diamonds are almost entirely speculative value.
> Diamonds are a far bigger scam than any crypto currency.
Rephrasing to concede the point and then doubling down on the opposite logical conclusion, is not compelling. Good luck.
Consider the points being made before dumping your kneejerk responses.
>> has value solely...
> Gold has been using that strategy for thousands of years
That is incorrect. Gold has tangible value, insofar as it has unique physical properties that are in demand. This is also true of diamonds (although synthetic diamonds have DeBiers trying to pretend there is a tangible difference), which is not the equivalent situation. Keyword, "solely". The bank valuation of types of debt is getting closer to the pure speculative situation.
> For any negotiation to succeed their has to be something both sides want.
"Everybody is looking for something." - The Eurythmics
Posing a hypothetical wherein someone doesn't want something, is ridiculous. Power can mean "endangering your safety", if that makes more sense to you.
> "As broad a safety margin as possible" is an argument for zero
No, actually, it isn't. That is an idiotic extrapolation.
Continue to move that goalpost. Good luck with that.
> we still see him as one person
From a neurological perspective, this is a simplistic view. One personality, seems more appropriate.
"A person is not a single entity of a single mind: a human is built of several parts, all of which compete to steer the ship of state." - David Eagleman
Jordan Peterson has also said as much (I don't have the exact quote). I'm sure there's more than a handful of papers, to find, on the subject of personality composition.
> Cutting a brain in half does not make a difference.
I think it almost always does (excepting where a subsected half is nonfunctional/disconnected already). Now those parts of the personality that are not in control, aren't fully in competition. This irrevocably changes the personality (sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly and varying vectors).
Hi pot, meet kettle. Please feel free to try again from your OP.
That's not an extraordinary claim. It's pedestrian.
Wut?
This is not stuff that matters. It's a political story for views. I don't have modpoints for the FPoster, so I will repeat the message.
> Kids, never apologize to people who feel slighted on other people's behalf.
Never apologize to people who feel slighted in any context. You cannot control for how other people feel and are not responsible for them or their experiences. Words are not violence. Words are the first alternative to violence. The moral perversions to the contrary, that have begun eroding western culture, are poisonous to reason.
My solution does not satisfy as a solution for n queens in an n x n board for many different values. Notably, there is no solution for n=4, n=3, n=2.
The problem is deceptively easy for n/2+1 placements. Once past that, it takes an increasingly (maybe infinitely) complex perturbation to get a stable algorithm as size increases. See 8x8 below, where 8/2+1 placements are algorithmically simple.
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 -- 1, ceil(n/2) always a valid placement starting from 0 index
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Finish out with a sort of bounce-redirection of the "knight moves" every time you hit a boundary:
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
8 Queens. Simple enough except deciding when to "bounce" is one problem, and what direction change is another (-2y +1x or -1y +2x).
The gymnastics (logical rules necessary to fit queens properly) continue to grow, the larger the grid gets. As illustrated, the problem is verification more than coming up with general solutions (that are only approximations that fit a set of sizes in practice).
If you were able to come up with a relatively simple general solution, it's not very hard for a computer to calculate 1mil x 1mil grid (https://www.quora.com/How-many-operations-per-second-can-a-computer-do-How-is-it-related-to-GHz). If you can parallelize this problem (which will do so nicely), the processing time of that experiment won't be noticeable. Proving that it's properly parallelized is another NP problem.
> That's not what you said at first, though. You don't even know what you believe.
I'm very sure I do.
> You said that people should be able to force other people to listen to them
No, I did not. - "a way for any message to be heard" is not the same as "anyone should have to listen". One is an available channel, the other is a forced acceptance of content (or something?). I really don't understand how that interpretation can make sense conceptually. My ongoing responses to serviscope_minor may clarify the issue.
> That's stifling speech in some form and it is absolutely not immoral.
This is the core of what you object to, as far as I can tell. I think you missed the important element of your own example. They said it, you heard it.
The consequence is obvious and practical. That's fundamentally separate from your own allowance that they might vocalize something to you. As social creatures, all humans accept that human vocalizations are both expected and worth interpreting as part of a subcortical network like in other primates. Even when some of it is bad, more is better because the otherwise immoral actors do not benefit as much as the moral actors (also there are usually consequences for the bad actors). This is a characteristic of the species, which is partly the basis for my morality interpretation with regards to the virtue of unrestrained speech. Maybe we're equivocating about what "restrained" means, but I'm talking about the initial conceptual physical restraint. Then I make the leap that proximal communication is equivalent (putting someone in a cell isn't much different than duct-taping their mouth) QED - there is a moral imperative to have a channel that humanity can communicate on without a priori restraint, in the face of ALTERNATIVELY making a tacit acceptance of the status quo (restrained speech existing via proximity). This all fits within my moral framework of spoken truth as the highest value in service to humanity (the US Constitution is nice and all, but I don't derive morality from regional legality).
> no you have no ... moral or ethical right to say whatever you want where ever you want whenever you want.
I still think you misstated this and I've laid out my reasoning, the best I can and you are perfectly sane to reject it. I can hope that some of this is bordering on interesting to you.
> Your right to free speech does not in any way trump the right of others to not listen.
I have not proposing forced acceptance of content. I have proposed that there should be a channel available that is optionally accessible by all.
The internet is the beginning of such a system, albeit not yet accessible by all. It might be useful to think about the fact that about 10% of the population on the planet, has an IQ under 90. Similarly, there is no channel for say a member of the Saan (other than physical speech) and that necessarily limits the audience. I get that you don't really understand the precept anyway (so you feel that you need to reject it explicitly), but Tor is a hellishly complicated thing that does not meet the criteria of accessibility in many ways.
> Truth is relative (truth is not the same as fact).
> I disagree. That's partly true, partly not. Some people believe lies, that does not make those lies the truth.
I am not talking about facts. What's factual and what's not, is a different issue. Lies are not truth, but white lies are a kind of truth. What truth means, has to do with human experience unless you're just going to dispense with trying to separate the meanings because you don't want to engage into epistemology. As an exercise, think about the statements: "the wriiting of Shakespeare contain truth" or "the Mona Lisa can reveal a truth". There's nothing factual in those constructs, but people can derive meaning from both (depending on the person). For sake of argument, I'll just agree that people have different beliefs and leave it at that for simplicity. It was really a warm up to explaining my morality from a deeper philosophical level.
> Not all confilcts can be resolved peacefully
Would you agree that generallly, you try communication first, as the preferred method? Even if it's just a warning? I think the shoot first and sort it out later approach is antithetical to western culture (ie the golden rule). I'm not sure of your specific beliefs, but I'm making an assumption about your sig, which may be in error.
> Are you advocation the position that solitication of murder (a type of spe
> So yes the system works and no you have no legal, moral or ethical right to say whatever you want where ever you want whenever you want.
Whoa there. I would definitely say you have a moral right to say whatever you want where ever you want whenever you want, in some respect. I would even go so far as to say it's moral that you should have a way for any message to be heard.
Truth is relative (truth is not the same as fact). Personal truth is based on experiences, biology, psychology, etc. Then maybe choose to add that speech is the preferred conflict resolution method (to violence or shame) when negotiating reality of truth. Admittedly, competing assessments of truth cannot necessarily be completely resolved and there's a frustration with that, everyone feels. Out of this, I find that stifling speech *in any form* is immoral to that end, regardless of the legal underpinnings. It's an integral part of our practical efforts to progress toward some resolution of truths, for the human culture at large.
Granted, many articulations (shitposting), are not practically, philosophically or even temporally useful. There's a moral truth that emerges from that observation...among many others, that would not necessarily be identifiable if we interfered with a series of filters or qualifications. A complex enough logical system has an indeterminate end state, per the halting problem. Trolling, fake news, or any number of other incidental and malevolent purposes are all valid ways to express truth (discovery of fraud is the revelation of the weakness of systems, paradoxically). People's interpretation of reality relies on feedback loops regardless of how frustrating our conceptual mismatches along the way.
I whittle down my feelings to a single assertion that's relevant to the subject. "It's always useful to have an unrestrained channel of global communication". Such a mechanism is not immediately available to everyone today and reddit is obviously not a suitable proxy for that axiom. Saying that it's immoral to have some form of unrestrained speech is a conceptual misstep, from my perspective. I think we're slowly correcting it in a haphazard crucible of tests in the internet over time. The idea that the internet routes around censorship might be seen as a metaphor for the actions of progressively moral individuals, to that end YMMV
It takes under a second to run this (given a fair bit of memory, since scripting languages are greedy):
$start = microtime();
$n = 1000;
$emptyVal = 0;
$queenVal = 1;
$n_by_n_array = array_fill(0, $n, array_fill(0, $n, $emptyVal));
$xptr = 0;
$yptr = 0;
$queensPlaced = 0;
while(true)
{
$n_by_n_array[$yptr][$xptr] = $queenVal;
$queensPlaced++;
$xptr += 1;
$yptr += 2;
if ($yptr >= $n)
{
break;
}
}
$yptr -= 1;
$xptr += 2;
while(true)
{
$n_by_n_array[$yptr][$xptr] = $queenVal;
$queensPlaced++;
$xptr += 1;
$yptr -= 2;
if ($yptr 0)
{
break;
}
}
echo "Placed:".$queensPlaced."\n";
$end = microtime();
echo "Execution Time (seconds):".$end-$start."\n";
Start cursor in the upper left cell.
Mark/Queen location
--- Subroutine start
Shift cursor right, down 2 (like a Knight!)
Mark
if out of bounds or final Y row
break
--- Subrouting end
Shift cursor up, right 2
Mark
--- Subroutine start
Shift cursor right, up 2
Mark
if out of bounds or initial Y row
break
--- Subrouting end
Done. There is a simple solution, but the prize is about being able to prove there is a simple solution, without coming up with it (P = NP)
> Dr Jefferson added: “There is a $1,000,000 prize for anyone who can prove whether or not the Queens Puzzle can be solved quickly so the rewards are high.”
It's not the solution that gets you the prize, but the proof that the solution can be done quickly (without exploring nearly every permutation).
I learned to program before I was introduced to formal logic or any math beyond arithmetic.
I don't know why these would be considered a prerequisite, when they are not a necessary prerequisite.
Toady won't live forever. Moreover, what he has produced is very difficult to build on without his participation (specifically tracking combat). As a superior talent in a number of fields, I'm sure there's plenty of lessons to be learned from the code about scaling very large, application development, from a solo developer perspective.