Feeling like I'd like to learn today. Could you take a moment and give me some simple examples of what it means to prove an algorithm or whatever it they are saying.
I agree. The mouse wheel sensitivity thing is a strange oversight in the otherwise elegant interface. It's hard to beleive it's not there. Instructions for doing it from the command line exist but they are not simple or something you want to with the finality of command line edits to system resources.
I haven't found one yet but I bet there might be an add-on widget for cinammon that does this. Anyone know?
Well precisely because you have to hassle with installing Cinnamon. Then you have to hassle with unsupported tweaks and widgets for cinnamon. Tweaking isn't productive. Linux mint is simple to get working and maintain and customize. Their sofware manager is more of a wizard than synaptics detailed approach, and is in effect far superior to synaptic. But they also have synaptic available too for custom stuff. Personally I find that if I want to sweat the details I'll just go to the command line with Apt-get.
the obsession with mint is, like apple, it just works. When was the last time anyone said that about Linux?
I like how mint works so flawlessly, looks clean, and stays out of your way as a desktop. It's just never any surprise when I install it on any of my machines from tiny to large.
But perhaps the main reason I like it is that it both feels intuitive and the software manager takes a lot of the burdens of installing software and custom widgets that are always a pain to find, install, and maintain in Linux.
In short if they are not hearing from me it's because I have no complaints or suggestions.
For me it's the best distribution for getting work done not being a system admin or expert.
In that regard it reminds me of why I also use Mac OS on all my other computers.
Don't get me wrong I've worked with the uggly details of main different systems. Centos and Redhat on server farms. DSL and Slack on small underpowered machines. Raspian. as well as Debian and various flavors of ubuntu. None of these are terrible but Linux mint is the most seemless and least confusing interface.
So I have standardized on it to get work done and not tweak my linux boxes. All my employees use it.
and in dialogue punctuation is there for cadence as much as sentence structure... so commas and ellipsis are allowed to get the colloquial context across. No one speaks in semi-colons ever.
Already googles accelerated server pages don't work on all browsers. Even sites like Reddit are using this. THe other day a Reddit site would not work on safari for me. Needed to install chrome.
hyperlinks that only work when you are logged into facebook and have facebook user permissions to view the page are becoming the norm.
the world wide web is getting stove piped into cable companies. Not a web anymore.
Now we get a transport protocol that requires specialized drivers or browsers to use.
They are describing a real effect first noticed for what is called cherenkov radiation (google that term to learn the details). What it means is that in an optically dense media or equivalently any slow waveguide, light travels slower than c, the speed in free space. In such a medium, you can shoot a particle like an electron faster than the slowed down light. This results in weird radiation effects. It's not too hard to make the light slow. it's basically c/index-of-refraction. so for example glass has n=1.5, where as electrons in a wire can go 0.9c (or faster). So this is not hard to do.
Jif is a a peanut butter. Gif is a Graphics format.
On the otherhand the worls might be a better place if we could gave something called Computer Giraffics. I don't know what it would be but the logo would be nice.
And I like Scooby do, so I prefe Scuba prononced Scooba.
When your company name is a common noun you should not name your products with common words. One of two things becomes a problem either no one can find your product or conversely if you become famous like "Amazon" then you now obliterate searches for the original words
They use the cavitation of the manitee fart bubbles collapsing. these get instantaneously hotter than the sun, cause fusion and also photons streaming out of the squeezed vacuum states.
ahhhhgg my pet peeve is when physicists confuse physics and math. This is a great example of this. They see something unexpected in a simple approximation of the math, and think wow that's magic!
Here's the general pattern of stupidity. First they create a mathematical model of an isolated system. Say atomic orbitals on an atom. They do this for a second atom. Noting in this representation says they atoms should "stick together". But surprise, they do and form a "covalent" or "ionic" bond.
Next what they do is they keep the original representation of orbitals -- cause that's math they can solve. And they perturb it a bit with a coupling term. Now they get some new energy levels which explain the bonding attraction.
Where they get confused is they keep descibing the system in the old orbitals but then talk about the new physics using the old terms.
In realitiy if you move beyond the perturbative treatment -- the one the maths can be solved for-- and move to just the full eigen states of the joined system you would not see any surprises at all. It's only a surprise when you don't do this.
Now there's absolutely nothing wrong with using perturbations on solvable systems rather than trying to do things exactly but on impractically harge to solve systems. Even better the perturbations give us some intuition about how the transiation from uncoupled to fully coupled happens. So I'm not knocking that.
I'm knocking the magical mysticism that comes from not realizing what the right math was and the right eigen states were.
In this case the if you overdrive space, then the eigne states of space are not the same as the ones they are descibing. they are emitting light because their over driving of the space creates a photonic state coupled to the matter states. they are literally making the photon not squeezing it out of the vaccum. those vacuum states don't even exist at all anymore in the he highly perturbed environment.
Here's a super tangible analogy. try balancing a broom stick upside down in the palm of your hand. it falls over because that's not an eigen state. Now move your hand rapidly in a circle. wow magically the the broom stays up. But what happened in math ville is not magic. the inverted state is an eigen state of this system.
Now this relates to this case as follows. Imagine instead of a broom we has electrons orbiting an atom. If we excite this with the right size photon the electron goes up an orbital then emits a different (or the same) photon when it relaxes back to a new unoccupied orbital. But suppose we hit this with a photon whose energy is above the ionization threshold. the electron gets blasted off. this is our broom falling over. Then we go into the lab and we try this and we find that strangely, the electron doesn't get blasted off. the photon is absorbed by the atom just like there was a resonant state there. But we know from the orbital model that isn't true. so it's magic! How did it happen. Well, if the electric field of the photon is large enough. and largre enough means it's on the same strength as the electric field between the electron and th enucleous then the photon's electic field is not a perturbation on the orbit causing electic field.
The mystical physcist descibes this as saying the photon figuratively creates it's own orbital on demand then occupies it. The mathematical phyicist says there is no atom and photon. there's an electromagnetic field. and this is an eigen state of that were the electron has some new wild orbital. It's exactly the same as the upside down broom. The rotation of your palm is the field of that photon perturbing the gravitaitonal field that makes the broom fall. And thus creates a new non-falling broom state.
there is no vaccum field in this perturbed system. It's just you exciting mater to make photons.
As a reader of journals I wish there was fewer to read. If we could just charge more for publishing and/or reading then people might possibly publish less or publish things that are more informative.
So that's the counter argument to paywalls.
The problem that a lot of people see, that isn't the actual problem here. Publishing test is now close to free. So you can't say the cost of publishing is justified by the cost of materials.
Before we might have thought that was the important value in charging. But it turns out it's the deterrence and filtering effect that are worth paying for not the paper. THere is also the value of archical retention which has gotten to be a higher risk in the age of computers. Printed materials last decades to centuries whereas digital materials often can't be read after a decade. I can't say the published are assuredly doing a good job on archiving but presumably they are trying rather than depending on the whim of Wordperect, or Troff, or Microxosft word 2.0 being readable 5 years hence.
Better search engines don't help. There's almost nothing a search engine can do to distinguish a good article from a bad one. The only thing they can do is score the articles by citations or journal reputation. And a higher priced journal generally gets less crap submitted to it, hence the reputation builds.
So I have no problem with reasonable fees. I'd pay even more if we could somehow filter out more of the crap.
1. They did identify the clip 2. But they searched the wrong bag.
WOuld you, as a hijacker, think that was a great way to smuggle in a gun? No. while (2) happened it's a low probability event. Not something you would count on.
Thus as a deterrent for overt attacks this is worked. Not saying the process can't somehow be subverted in some other way but this particular example is not a good one to point at and yell "security theater".
While stallman has some rivid values I don't think he's disagreeing with you. He's just wanting the process to call attention to the philosophy more and the consequences of choices in our real world. He's being both realistic and educational by proposing the cute idea of the personified Devil
Good god man. you are completely wrong. The NFL excludes deliberate stupidity and inefficiency of course. But in the extreme, a random guessing or uphill climbing finds the minimum just as fast as steepest descent or genetic optimization. yes that is proven. The catch is that for problem on which steepest descent works well then it out performs the crazy idea of finding a minimum by going up hill. And that's likely most problems you will encounter in real life. You might even wonder how going up hill could find the minimum faster than going downhill. But in many problems you will blunder into the minimum only after going over a ridge. When you sum this over all problems-- which is the clever part of the proof-- it turns out that all non-revisiting algorithms (i.e. ones that dont get stuck) will find the global minimum in the same average time. It's rather shocking. It thus says, the ONLY thing you can ever say about a search algorithm is it's better for a certain class of problems, then accurately describe the circle of efficiency defining that class. One can of course be stupid and make a revisiting algorithm but that's not germane. The other escape clause of the NFL grimness is that if you are not trying to find the minumum but rather something-close to the minimum the it may be possible to get there faster under certain limitations but quantifying this has not been achieved yet.
Apparently no one has heard of Wolpert's No-Free-Lunch-Theorem for search. It says then when averaged over all use cases no search algorithm out performs another (provided resources are not an issue). So one can have more resource efficient searches and one can have search algorithms that do better on some problems than others. It's great when you find a class of problems your search method is optimal for. But in general, no. Can't be done. TO get a 200x speed up on the test set they must have a 200x slow down on average elsewhere. That said this could be really useful for a large class of practical problems. So it's the hyperbole that is the bullshit not the research.
Slashdot Mirror
Feeling like I'd like to learn today. Could you take a moment and give me some simple examples of what it means to prove an algorithm or whatever it they are saying.
Just because Ubuntu Mate exists is not a reason to avoid Mint. It's great that people have choices in OS still.
I agree. The mouse wheel sensitivity thing is a strange oversight in the otherwise elegant interface. It's hard to beleive it's not there. Instructions for doing it from the command line exist but they are not simple or something you want to with the finality of command line edits to system resources.
I haven't found one yet but I bet there might be an add-on widget for cinammon that does this. Anyone know?
Well precisely because you have to hassle with installing Cinnamon. Then you have to hassle with unsupported tweaks and widgets for cinnamon. Tweaking isn't productive. Linux mint is simple to get working and maintain and customize. Their sofware manager is more of a wizard than synaptics detailed approach, and is in effect far superior to synaptic. But they also have synaptic available too for custom stuff. Personally I find that if I want to sweat the details I'll just go to the command line with Apt-get.
the obsession with mint is, like apple, it just works. When was the last time anyone said that about Linux?
I like how mint works so flawlessly, looks clean, and stays out of your way as a desktop. It's just never any surprise when I install it on any of my machines from tiny to large.
But perhaps the main reason I like it is that it both feels intuitive and the software manager takes a lot of the burdens of installing software and custom widgets that are always a pain to find, install, and maintain in Linux.
In short if they are not hearing from me it's because I have no complaints or suggestions.
For me it's the best distribution for getting work done not being a system admin or expert.
In that regard it reminds me of why I also use Mac OS on all my other computers.
Don't get me wrong I've worked with the uggly details of main different systems. Centos and Redhat on server farms. DSL and Slack on small underpowered machines. Raspian. as well as Debian and various flavors of ubuntu. None of these are terrible but Linux mint is the most seemless and least confusing interface.
So I have standardized on it to get work done and not tweak my linux boxes. All my employees use it.
The Snake eats its own tail
their illustrated books for children. I like
C Enums: One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish,
Operating systems: The Linax
Artificial Intelligence: Hunches In Bunches
Bash ; the cat in the hat
Green Eggs And Spam email
Boolean logic: O, The Thinks You Can Think!
Stacks and Queues: Hop on Pop
Broken links break the web.
Google should have been forced to use the link shortener exclusively for all it's own internal web sites. Then it would have been safer.
the new threat is the google AMP and other accelated pages. This is already breaking compaibility with browsers other than Chrome.
Google is the new nicorsoft of embrace and extend.... and kill
and in dialogue punctuation is there for cadence as much as sentence structure... so commas and ellipsis are allowed to get the colloquial context across. No one speaks in semi-colons ever.
Already googles accelerated server pages don't work on all browsers. Even sites like Reddit are using this. THe other day a Reddit site would not work on safari for me. Needed to install chrome.
hyperlinks that only work when you are logged into facebook and have facebook user permissions to view the page are becoming the norm.
the world wide web is getting stove piped into cable companies. Not a web anymore.
Now we get a transport protocol that requires specialized drivers or browsers to use.
They are describing a real effect first noticed for what is called cherenkov radiation (google that term to learn the details). What it means is that in an optically dense media or equivalently any slow waveguide, light travels slower than c, the speed in free space. In such a medium, you can shoot a particle like an electron faster than the slowed down light. This results in weird radiation effects. It's not too hard to make the light slow. it's basically c/index-of-refraction. so for example glass has n=1.5, where as electrons in a wire can go 0.9c (or faster). So this is not hard to do.
how many drinks I've had. and indeed it does become a soft G after a while.
in the future we will all send google-auto-composed memos to each other for our AI to read and respond. All we need is the George Jetson button.
Jif is a a peanut butter. Gif is a Graphics format.
On the otherhand the worls might be a better place if we could gave something called Computer Giraffics. I don't know what it would be but the logo would be nice.
And I like Scooby do, so I prefe Scuba prononced Scooba.
And dont' get me started on FuBar and Ghoti.
When your company name is a common noun you should not name your products with common words. One of two things becomes a problem either no one can find your product or conversely if you become famous like "Amazon" then you now obliterate searches for the original words
They use the cavitation of the manitee fart bubbles collapsing. these get instantaneously hotter than the sun, cause fusion and also photons streaming out of the squeezed vacuum states.
ahhhhgg my pet peeve is when physicists confuse physics and math. This is a great example of this. They see something unexpected in a simple approximation of the math, and think wow that's magic!
Here's the general pattern of stupidity. First they create a mathematical model of an isolated system. Say atomic orbitals on an atom. They do this for a second atom. Noting in this representation says they atoms should "stick together". But surprise, they do and form a "covalent" or "ionic" bond.
Next what they do is they keep the original representation of orbitals -- cause that's math they can solve. And they perturb it a bit with a coupling term. Now they get some new energy levels which explain the bonding attraction.
Where they get confused is they keep descibing the system in the old orbitals but then talk about the new physics using the old terms.
In realitiy if you move beyond the perturbative treatment -- the one the maths can be solved for-- and move to just the full eigen states of the joined system you would not see any surprises at all. It's only a surprise when you don't do this.
Now there's absolutely nothing wrong with using perturbations on solvable systems rather than trying to do things exactly but on impractically harge to solve systems. Even better the perturbations give us some intuition about how the transiation from uncoupled to fully coupled happens. So I'm not knocking that.
I'm knocking the magical mysticism that comes from not realizing what the right math was and the right eigen states were.
In this case the if you overdrive space, then the eigne states of space are not the same as the ones they are descibing. they are emitting light because their over driving of the space creates a photonic state coupled to the matter states. they are literally making the photon not squeezing it out of the vaccum. those vacuum states don't even exist at all anymore in the he highly perturbed environment.
Here's a super tangible analogy. try balancing a broom stick upside down in the palm of your hand. it falls over because that's not an eigen state. Now move your hand rapidly in a circle. wow magically the the broom stays up. But what happened in math ville is not magic. the inverted state is an eigen state of this system.
Now this relates to this case as follows. Imagine instead of a broom we has electrons orbiting an atom. If we excite this with the right size photon the electron goes up an orbital then emits a different (or the same) photon when it relaxes back to a new unoccupied orbital. But suppose we hit this with a photon whose energy is above the ionization threshold. the electron gets blasted off. this is our broom falling over. Then we go into the lab and we try this and we find that strangely, the electron doesn't get blasted off. the photon is absorbed by the atom just like there was a resonant state there. But we know from the orbital model that isn't true. so it's magic! How did it happen. Well, if the electric field of the photon is large enough. and largre enough means it's on the same strength as the electric field between the electron and th enucleous then the photon's electic field is not a perturbation on the orbit causing electic field.
The mystical physcist descibes this as saying the photon figuratively creates it's own orbital on demand then occupies it. The mathematical phyicist says there is no atom and photon. there's an electromagnetic field. and this is an eigen state of that were the electron has some new wild orbital. It's exactly the same as the upside down broom. The rotation of your palm is the field of that photon perturbing the gravitaitonal field that makes the broom fall. And thus creates a new non-falling broom state.
there is no vaccum field in this perturbed system. It's just you exciting mater to make photons.
As a reader of journals I wish there was fewer to read. If we could just charge more for publishing and/or reading then people might possibly publish less or publish things that are more informative.
So that's the counter argument to paywalls.
The problem that a lot of people see, that isn't the actual problem here. Publishing test is now close to free. So you can't say the cost of publishing is justified by the cost of materials.
Before we might have thought that was the important value in charging. But it turns out it's the deterrence and filtering effect that are worth paying for not the paper. THere is also the value of archical retention which has gotten to be a higher risk in the age of computers. Printed materials last decades to centuries whereas digital materials often can't be read after a decade. I can't say the published are assuredly doing a good job on archiving but presumably they are trying rather than depending on the whim of Wordperect, or Troff, or Microxosft word 2.0 being readable 5 years hence.
Better search engines don't help. There's almost nothing a search engine can do to distinguish a good article from a bad one. The only thing they can do is score the articles by citations or journal reputation. And a higher priced journal generally gets less crap submitted to it, hence the reputation builds.
So I have no problem with reasonable fees. I'd pay even more if we could somehow filter out more of the crap.
1. They did identify the clip
2. But they searched the wrong bag.
WOuld you, as a hijacker, think that was a great way to smuggle in a gun? No. while (2) happened it's a low probability event. Not something you would count on.
Thus as a deterrent for overt attacks this is worked. Not saying the process can't somehow be subverted in some other way but this particular example is not a good one to point at and yell "security theater".
While stallman has some rivid values I don't think he's disagreeing with you. He's just wanting the process to call attention to the philosophy more and the consequences of choices in our real world. He's being both realistic and educational by proposing the cute idea of the personified Devil
Maybe hairdressers will stay too.
Good god man. you are completely wrong. The NFL excludes deliberate stupidity and inefficiency of course. But in the extreme, a random guessing or uphill climbing finds the minimum just as fast as steepest descent or genetic optimization. yes that is proven. The catch is that for problem on which steepest descent works well then it out performs the crazy idea of finding a minimum by going up hill. And that's likely most problems you will encounter in real life. You might even wonder how going up hill could find the minimum faster than going downhill. But in many problems you will blunder into the minimum only after going over a ridge. When you sum this over all problems-- which is the clever part of the proof-- it turns out that all non-revisiting algorithms (i.e. ones that dont get stuck) will find the global minimum in the same average time. It's rather shocking. It thus says, the ONLY thing you can ever say about a search algorithm is it's better for a certain class of problems, then accurately describe the circle of efficiency defining that class. One can of course be stupid and make a revisiting algorithm but that's not germane. The other escape clause of the NFL grimness is that if you are not trying to find the minumum but rather something-close to the minimum the it may be possible to get there faster under certain limitations but quantifying this has not been achieved yet.
While your points are well intentioned, you haven't read the No-free-lunch-theorem. It addresses all your points and it's still true.
Apparently no one has heard of Wolpert's No-Free-Lunch-Theorem for search. It says then when averaged over all use cases no search algorithm out performs another (provided resources are not an issue). So one can have more resource efficient searches and one can have search algorithms that do better on some problems than others. It's great when you find a class of problems your search method is optimal for. But in general, no. Can't be done.
TO get a 200x speed up on the test set they must have a 200x slow down on average elsewhere.
That said this could be really useful for a large class of practical problems. So it's the hyperbole that is the bullshit not the research.
Did you shop at Target or Lowes or Kroger recently?