First of all the attack on the Pakistani schools would not count since the victims were muslim.
I'm floored. Something like 90% of victims of Islamist terrorism are Muslim. Attacking non-Muslims is the relatively rare case. What you're saying is that criticising the vast majority of heinous acts by Muslim extremists doesn't count as criticising Muslim extremists. That makes no sense at all.
But since you asked, there's plenty of criticism going around about this crime. Do you want links, or can you use Google?
I'm talking about the local papers explaining that some attack was wrong and counter to islam, that extremist justifications and teachings are counter to islam; I'm talking about the local imams preaching these things in the local mosques; etc.
What research did you do to verify that this isn't happening? Did you read some local papers, attend Friday prayers in some of these local mosques?
Having said that, do remember that groups like ISIS and the Taliban are something akin to organised crime or an occupying force in places where they control. Much of the resistance is underground because it has to be.
You can't protect or refuse to criticize muslim extremists merely because they share your faith. When non-muslims have legitimate grievances against muslim extremists then moderate muslims need to side with the non-muslims.
Related question: C++ was originally conceived as "C + Simula", but something that is interesting about the STL is how non-object-oriented it is, in particular using no inheritance.
If we were designing a new "better C" today, one that you'd be happy to implement a STL-like system in, knowing what we know now, would we bother with Simula-style objects at all?
And you define critical thinking as different from logic?
Uhm... yes.
Logic is a framework for constructing individual theories which can then be used to model real-world situations. Critical thinking is a system and methodology for understanding and analysing arguments made by others, and to ensure that your own thoughts are clear and reasoned. These are obviously distinct areas, though they are not disjoint. And they are both "philosophy".
The critical thinking subject which I did didn't touch on linear logic (for example) at all. Plus, a lot of it was analysing the semantics and pragmatics of language.
Well now, I guess Trig must not be math either.. because you know.. it's "trig" right?
Trigonometry isn't calculus, even though there are plenty of places where they touch. But they are both "mathematics".
Blindly claiming "Dunning Kruger" when a person has at least 7 years of University knowledge is telling.
I had some high-profile examples in mind as I was writing that. Richard Dawkins is probably the clearest example of someone who is an undoubted world expert in one field (biology, and evolutionary biology specifically), who vastly overrates his competence in pretty much any other field.
Philosophy is in essence logic [...]
I'm going to say "no". Philosophy is, in essence, critical and systematic thinking. Its boundaries are fuzzy, but it is the primordial soup from which new fields of human endeavour form. These fields eventually graduate to be new faculties and departments of their own. Logic is one such field, but it's not the only one.
So let me be more clear on this.
I would not turn my nose up at anyone with a PhD in philosophy from a non-fake institution of higher learning. That person is very likely to be highly valuable. However, the context is hiring an engineer to implement and maintain industrial control systems. I don't know specifically what the job was, but do remember that SCADA systems are often the second line of defence against an industrial accident. I've been engineering for 20 years, and I consider myself unqualified to work on safety-critical systems.
If all you knew about someone was that they had a PhD in philosophy and described themselves as a "self-taught Java guru", what are the chances that they have the appropriate knowledge and methodology (whether formally acquired or not) for this specific job?
Does this guy have what it takes to learn the requisite knowledge? That seems likely; in fact, he probably has more aptitude for working in this area than most software engineering graduates. Has he acquired the knowledge during his "self-taught Java guru" training? That seems unlikely.
Are you one of those idiots who thinks programming is harder than philosophy?
I am not the OP, and I don't think this, but someone with a high qualification in one field may, thanks to the Dunning-Kruger effect, overestimate their aptitude for a different field. Plus, "self-taught java guru" is a red flag by any measure.
Yeah, I'd consider them if they had a relevant referee or a portfolio, like a github repository that I could inspect. A smart person is a smart person and formal qualifications aren't everything. Besides, their PhD might have been in logic.
As I understood it, the issue is that glibc's libm occasionally falls back to a multi-precision version of some transcendental functions if the "pure IEEE-754" version isn't good enough on some inputs.
I did look at the code, and the implementation of exp() on 64-bit floats does indeed fall back to a slow path on extreme inputs. I can't remember if it's the MP code or not.
Don't tell me that you've never written an algorithm which uses speculation before. It's quite a common scenario that you have a common fast path and an uncommon slow path, and the cost of deciding which path to use is a significant fraction of the cost of the fast path + checking the result.
In the case of libm, there are a lot of code paths which are there only to maintain strict compliance; no numeric analyst would ever call exp or pow (or even round) with arguments in that range. Not on purpose, anyway.
Not just every architecture. In general, you may need to write it for every major revision of every architecture. As CPU pipelines and instruction sets change, the hand-crafted assembler may no longer be optimal.
Indeed it is, however it's still rare that you have to go to ASM in those cases. In simple cases the compiler already generates SIMD code on code which can benefit from it, and for almost all other cases, there are C intrinsics.
One, religion asserts that God exists. Existence itself, but perhaps not meaning or other intangibles, certainly seems open to scientific enquiry.
Oh, existence is the easy part. It's trivial to prove that at least one god exists.
Consider a Sun worshipper. By any reasonable definition, the Sun is that person's god. By any scientific test you care to name, the Sun exists. Therefore, at least one god exists. QED.
Feel free to substitute a nature worshipper, or an idol worshipper, or someone who worships a living or dead person as a deity, and the same argument works.
Two, many religions assert origin stories for the universe. None of these match the physical evidence we have obtained without VERY liberal interpretation.
This assumes that said origin stories are intended to be interpreted scientifically or proto-scientifically. Where I live, we have indigenous people who tell animist origin stories, and exactly none of them (to my knowledge) believe that those stories are scientifically accurate.
That's cool. Personally, I am a fan, and I've been waiting a long time to hear Carnival of Light. The good news is, I might only have to wait another couple of years.
A major games journalist was having an affair with a game developer, and this was confirmed.
First off, thank you for conceding that is the entire extent of the initial story: two people working in the same industry had sex.
What didn't happen, and this was also confirmed (both by timelines and testimony) was trading of "sexual favors for goods or services rendered", as the other AC claimed.
"Zoe Quinn is a bad girlfriend" is not a story that Slashdot would take any interest in.
Have people suddenly forgotten about Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris?
No, nobody has forgotten that Saville and Harris sexually abused children in their care. What are you accusing games journalists of now?
It would lock up much software as then each person who contributed is basically a copyright holder and can sue under that.
That's true of the Linux kernel. It's not true of most GPL'd code, which is almost all available under GPL version X (for some X) "or (at your option) any later version".
But one Breivik is newsworthy only because it's such a rare occurrence.
THANKYOU!
I'm glad someone said it. Breivik was a rare occurrence. 9/11 was a rare occurrence. Fort Hood was a rare occurrence. The random nutter with a gun in Sydney is a rare occurrence. All crimes of this nature are rare occurrences. That is why they are remarkable, and that is why we take note of them.
When drones take out a whole street in Pakistan, nobody pays attention, because this is not a rare occurrence.
Slashdot Mirror
Kial Esperanto uzas malfacilan Polan prononcon?
Well, that difference would make it patentable...
I'm floored. Something like 90% of victims of Islamist terrorism are Muslim. Attacking non-Muslims is the relatively rare case. What you're saying is that criticising the vast majority of heinous acts by Muslim extremists doesn't count as criticising Muslim extremists. That makes no sense at all.
But since you asked, there's plenty of criticism going around about this crime. Do you want links, or can you use Google?
What research did you do to verify that this isn't happening? Did you read some local papers, attend Friday prayers in some of these local mosques?
Having said that, do remember that groups like ISIS and the Taliban are something akin to organised crime or an occupying force in places where they control. Much of the resistance is underground because it has to be.
But they do! Everywhere except, apparently, in stories reported by the mainstream media. Gotta keep fear alive.
Merely using information hiding doesn't make something object-oriented. There is virtually no OOAD in the STL.
(Pun intended; grep for virtual in the C++ standard library some time.)
The first implementation was in Ada. It wasn't the full STL as we know and love it today, of course.
Related question: C++ was originally conceived as "C + Simula", but something that is interesting about the STL is how non-object-oriented it is, in particular using no inheritance.
If we were designing a new "better C" today, one that you'd be happy to implement a STL-like system in, knowing what we know now, would we bother with Simula-style objects at all?
Uhm... yes.
Logic is a framework for constructing individual theories which can then be used to model real-world situations. Critical thinking is a system and methodology for understanding and analysing arguments made by others, and to ensure that your own thoughts are clear and reasoned. These are obviously distinct areas, though they are not disjoint. And they are both "philosophy".
The critical thinking subject which I did didn't touch on linear logic (for example) at all. Plus, a lot of it was analysing the semantics and pragmatics of language.
Trigonometry isn't calculus, even though there are plenty of places where they touch. But they are both "mathematics".
I had some high-profile examples in mind as I was writing that. Richard Dawkins is probably the clearest example of someone who is an undoubted world expert in one field (biology, and evolutionary biology specifically), who vastly overrates his competence in pretty much any other field.
I'm going to say "no". Philosophy is, in essence, critical and systematic thinking. Its boundaries are fuzzy, but it is the primordial soup from which new fields of human endeavour form. These fields eventually graduate to be new faculties and departments of their own. Logic is one such field, but it's not the only one.
So let me be more clear on this.
I would not turn my nose up at anyone with a PhD in philosophy from a non-fake institution of higher learning. That person is very likely to be highly valuable. However, the context is hiring an engineer to implement and maintain industrial control systems. I don't know specifically what the job was, but do remember that SCADA systems are often the second line of defence against an industrial accident. I've been engineering for 20 years, and I consider myself unqualified to work on safety-critical systems.
If all you knew about someone was that they had a PhD in philosophy and described themselves as a "self-taught Java guru", what are the chances that they have the appropriate knowledge and methodology (whether formally acquired or not) for this specific job?
Does this guy have what it takes to learn the requisite knowledge? That seems likely; in fact, he probably has more aptitude for working in this area than most software engineering graduates. Has he acquired the knowledge during his "self-taught Java guru" training? That seems unlikely.
Are you one of those idiots who thinks programming is harder than philosophy?
I am not the OP, and I don't think this, but someone with a high qualification in one field may, thanks to the Dunning-Kruger effect, overestimate their aptitude for a different field. Plus, "self-taught java guru" is a red flag by any measure.
Yeah, I'd consider them if they had a relevant referee or a portfolio, like a github repository that I could inspect. A smart person is a smart person and formal qualifications aren't everything. Besides, their PhD might have been in logic.
This is MPI code, not IEE754 code.
As I understood it, the issue is that glibc's libm occasionally falls back to a multi-precision version of some transcendental functions if the "pure IEEE-754" version isn't good enough on some inputs.
I did look at the code, and the implementation of exp() on 64-bit floats does indeed fall back to a slow path on extreme inputs. I can't remember if it's the MP code or not.
You mean obligatory Walsh. Of course, it's obsolete now that RSQRTSS is ubiquitous.
Don't tell me that you've never written an algorithm which uses speculation before. It's quite a common scenario that you have a common fast path and an uncommon slow path, and the cost of deciding which path to use is a significant fraction of the cost of the fast path + checking the result.
In the case of libm, there are a lot of code paths which are there only to maintain strict compliance; no numeric analyst would ever call exp or pow (or even round) with arguments in that range. Not on purpose, anyway.
Not just every architecture. In general, you may need to write it for every major revision of every architecture. As CPU pipelines and instruction sets change, the hand-crafted assembler may no longer be optimal.
(Exercise: Write an optimal memcpy/memmove.)
Indeed it is, however it's still rare that you have to go to ASM in those cases. In simple cases the compiler already generates SIMD code on code which can benefit from it, and for almost all other cases, there are C intrinsics.
One, religion asserts that God exists. Existence itself, but perhaps not meaning or other intangibles, certainly seems open to scientific enquiry.
Oh, existence is the easy part. It's trivial to prove that at least one god exists.
Consider a Sun worshipper. By any reasonable definition, the Sun is that person's god. By any scientific test you care to name, the Sun exists. Therefore, at least one god exists. QED.
Feel free to substitute a nature worshipper, or an idol worshipper, or someone who worships a living or dead person as a deity, and the same argument works.
Two, many religions assert origin stories for the universe. None of these match the physical evidence we have obtained without VERY liberal interpretation.
This assumes that said origin stories are intended to be interpreted scientifically or proto-scientifically. Where I live, we have indigenous people who tell animist origin stories, and exactly none of them (to my knowledge) believe that those stories are scientifically accurate.
Yeah, I know, revisionism and all that. I refer you to my previous post on the topic.
On the contrary, I think that the cannon should have been allowed onboard despite the hijack risk.
That's cool. Personally, I am a fan, and I've been waiting a long time to hear Carnival of Light. The good news is, I might only have to wait another couple of years.
To this day, neither Rosa Parks nor Anita Sarkeesian has been silenced.
Putting yourself in the shoes of the FBI, you'd want to eliminate GG from your enquiries first. Hence the open investigation.
First off, thank you for conceding that is the entire extent of the initial story: two people working in the same industry had sex.
What didn't happen, and this was also confirmed (both by timelines and testimony) was trading of "sexual favors for goods or services rendered", as the other AC claimed.
"Zoe Quinn is a bad girlfriend" is not a story that Slashdot would take any interest in.
No, nobody has forgotten that Saville and Harris sexually abused children in their care. What are you accusing games journalists of now?
That's true of the Linux kernel. It's not true of most GPL'd code, which is almost all available under GPL version X (for some X) "or (at your option) any later version".
THANKYOU!
I'm glad someone said it. Breivik was a rare occurrence. 9/11 was a rare occurrence. Fort Hood was a rare occurrence. The random nutter with a gun in Sydney is a rare occurrence. All crimes of this nature are rare occurrences. That is why they are remarkable, and that is why we take note of them.
When drones take out a whole street in Pakistan, nobody pays attention, because this is not a rare occurrence.
My first computer was a COMX-35. Good times!
Actually, there is no "eternal torture in the fires of hell" for humans in the Bible. A lot of people don't know this.