He also quoted a science historian that before the 13th century no more than five persons in Europe knew how to perform a division.
Screw Taleb.
Taleb has an all-world point to make, and yet somehow he manages to advance his thesis on an all-world edifice of rhetorical corner-cutting. It's almost as if he feels the need to degrade his argument to prove that even broken argumentation strategies can be robust, if advocated by a person uniquely possessed of this particular ray of enlightenment (only).
On the matter of division, every rustler, cut throat, murderers, bounty hunter, desperado, mug, pug, thug, nitwit, halfwit, dimwit, viper, sniper, con man, Indian agent, Mexican bandit, mugger, buggerer, bushwhacker, hornswoggler, horse thief, bull dyke, train robber, bank robber, ass-kicker, shit-kicker and Methodist in the pan-Arabian, pan-Persian, and pan-Byzantium raisin trade could perform a "goes into" from a hundred paces at the drop of a pin.
Next up, someone is going to argue that similar triangles don't encode ratio, and that ratio doesn't encode division.
Here's my version of Taleb's thesis, minus his bogus argumentation:
With sufficient flesh-paring abstraction, all equations are cannibalistic.
Expressed another way, purity looks great on paper, but it's risky to paint the eye of the dragon in real life.
Is the underlying problem here too much attention to detail, or too little?
Intelligence, by any definition, is the ability to spot the word "unlock" in the story summary while ignoring the word "AI".
Because we don't have "unlocks" every day, but we do have this tiresome "what the fuck is AI, anyway?" shit show more often than Popeye eats E. coli tainted spinach.
New improved can, same old dubious irrigation method.
And logically, if our climate has positive feedbacks to increasing CO2, our planet should have been completely fried a long time ago.
This is your standard of careful thinking?
The system under discussion has hundreds or thousands of important degrees of freedom in excess of the three-body problem. Between any pair of state space regions of transient stability (small=10,000 years, large=100 million years) there could be an entire Game of Thrones worth of non-linear cast members.
It's not like the first non-linearity results in Space: 1999, where first the moon leaves the earth's orbit, and a day later, the moon departs the entire solar system.
Several episodes of the first series hinted that the Moon's journey was influenced (and perhaps initiated) by a "mysterious unknown force", which was guiding the Alphans toward an ultimate destiny.
There's a big difference between non-linearity and the mysterious unknown force guiding the Alphans toward an ultimate destiny.
For real x, e^x is non-linear and so is e^ix. What a puzzler! The first form is the one you (and the Alphans) invoked, the second is the one more likely to govern the earth's climate, in the large.
Just sheer size of the potential "game-tree" in that betting was the only obstacle.
You are so totally wrong. Conquering the game tree only gets you to a provably optimal Nash equilibrium, at which point you will never lose, but there's no guarantee you will ever win, either. Conquering the game tree isn't worth much if you only manage to arrive at an insanely conservative belt-and-suspenders playing posture.
Here's the rub: in order to maximize your win rate against imperfect opponents you must *deviate* from optimal play. Are you sure your opponent is too weak to see this, or are you being conned in an elaborate rope-a-dope at some deeper level of the Inception Matrix?
How fast you win trades off against how accurately (and reliably) you can model your adversary's cognitive weaknesses. Any willingness to depart from Nash optimal can be modelled as a cognitive weakness.
I read the entire thread up to my standard filter level, and this is what I concluded: the singular of anecdote is "one size fits all".
It's pretty clear from what I've read here that for a low-value target, I'd just settle for the low-hanging fruit of Windows Defender, ad blocking, a DNS block list, etc.
It's also pretty clear that for a high value target (e.g. law firm, bank) where the minimum system install is a bulked-out i7 I'd elect to suffer the bloat & obtrusiveness in order to obtain the somewhat better catch rate of a first-tier third-party solution. The people working for these kinds of institutions are pretty demoralised to begin with, it will just look like business as usual (and so it is).
The other side of this is that "one size fits all" is directly connected to the competency porn carapace. "Well, I work for banks and law firms and YOU can't handle the truth". But what actually gets written is this "YOU can't handle compensating my clients for a 48-hour loss of service". This tends to be a person whose amygdala has swollen to such a painfully large size that he or she can no longer multiply 1% times 365 (the constant friction of a badly behaved "solution") and can only multiply 100% times 2 days (as specified under the total availability-loss Weimar Reparations Act).
Of course, in such a setting it makes no sense to allow the end-user to postpone updates or any other systems maintenance.
I've seen "of course" rogered in any number of ways that are NSFW, but this takes the cake.
In fully developed vassalage, the lord and the vassal would take part in a commendation ceremony composed of two parts, the homage and the fealty, including the use of Christian sacraments to show its sacred importance.
One might think of it as something like a Christian monastery writ on a larger scale, Western Europeans and their descendants have been invading Islamic territory and trying to force them to adopt our customs and culture for what, about 1,000 years now?
Amazing. You actually realized that you were writing a non-sequitur, but figured you could finesse the problem by changing the period that properly belongs there into a comma.
Long ago I had many bugs in my own written expression, but never this.
As a non-American, I find it curious that the person who says he wants to bring jobs to America is simply confirming the post-Snowden belief that America is not a safe place to do business.
Corollary to Betteridge's law of headlines: whenever a sentence begins with "I find it curious", it originated with the following regular expression:
s/X is simply confirming[citation needed]/I find it curious that X is simply confirming/
Should we have banned chemistry and research on radioactive elements because it led to the deaths of many scientists?
So much for the pretense of lowering the oxygen content in the debate. "Baaaaaned," said the scary wolf, pretending to be one of the sheep. Really, have you ever read about the stupidity of how carelessly radioactive materials were handled during the early years?
At McGill [Hahn] found a third substance intermediate between the other two; he named it "mesothorium" and it was later identified as an isotope of radium. Mesothorium compounds glow in the dark at a different level of faint illumination from radiothorium compounds.
Hahn thought the difference might amuse his sovereign. On a velvet cushion in a little box he mounted an unshielded sample of mesothorium equivalent in radiation intensity to 300 milligrams of radium.
He presented his potent offering to the Kaiser and asked him to compare it to "an emanating sample of radiothorium that produced in the dark very nice luminous moving shapes on [a] screen." No one warned His Majesty of the radiation hazard because no safety standards for radiation exposure had yet been set.
"If I did the same thing today," Hahn said fifty years later, "I should find myself in prison."
It's a thick book, and I didn't get all the way through it on first pass, but as far as I did get, it was one of the best science mingled with politics books I've ever read.
Millions of miles before we reach the asteroid belt's ban-hammer, there's the simple matters of sensible safety standards, and the tiny little micro-meteor of never declaring any human-scale test conducted in a pure oxygen environment as intrinsically safe.
Likewise, three minutes out of every seventies sitcom is almost funny.
The simple ROI calculation here is whether the value of all the advertising you've consumed / been exposed to exceeds the value of all the time and attention viewing this advertising has consumed from your life.
Note: include any time you spent tweaking your ad filters, or your ad-related security profile (or reinstalling an OS trashed by the failure to so invest) in total time frittered.
Advertising can only survive if worst of the crap goes away. Unfortunately, according to Sturgeon's law, ninety percent of everything is crap, and this isn't likely to change.
The only exception is where the consumer deliberately seeks out filters that discard the shitty ninety percent, such as only watching movies endorsed by Roger Ebert. This is not perfect, but man oh man, the troubles he's seen. He watched The Brown Bunny and The Human Centipede so you didn't have to.
Any form of push is doomed under active discrimination, because 99% of push is crap, in the most typical of all possible worlds.
I tried to procure Mac Minis for a small office in angel-finance reboot mode—it was a blank slate for changing the mix—and Apple had neutered the quad-core mini with the expansion RAM slot so badly, we bought refurbed Windows 7 boxes instead.
Worse machine, twice as much memory, half the price.
One key executive who has cold feet about making the jump, and you're not going to risk a castrated revamp. So it goes.
It was soon revealed that Apple was using soldered RAM in the new Mac minis, an unfortunate development that meant that customers would no longer be able to upgrade their memory after purchase. Want the maximum 16GB of RAM for your new Mac? That'll be $300 extra at checkout...
Compounding the memory upgrade situation is the company's choice of CPUs. Yes, they're Haswell, but they're not as fast as their 2-plus-year-old Ivy Bridge predecessors. The old 2012 Mac mini lineup included options for both dual- and quad-core CPUs, but the new 2014 models are dual-core only, and the efficiency improvements in Haswell can't compensate for the loss of those two cores.
I had 100% buy-in for the Apple solution, had we still been able to get the 2012 spec. Mac mini.
My office mate had brought his own 2012-era Mini into the office and everyone loved it, which is how the option to jump ship from Microsoft entered the conversation in the first place.
Then *bam* the anvil behind the velvet curtain when we specked out the crippled revamp.
I can only imagine that Apple kind of wants to kill off the PC category altogether. Insufficient lock-in. Choice remains.
The abos are not so innocent as the liberals want to portray them after all.
Here's the thing: the upside of inventing a writing system is world domination; the downside is finally having to admit in public that you are a real ass (and always have been).
In the above, "you" is a set of nesting dolls, innermost being the fifty-year-old white male technocrats of western European origin who treat Wikipedia as their private, personal playgrounds (thence to aging white European males, white European males, white males, whites altogether, etc.)
Here's the second thing: after a society invents writing, soon the society has written myths (with serious legacy entrenchment) that innocence preceded the current sad state of affairs (how-far-I-have-fallen porn, not that the larger consequences can't be remedied by kneeling under the right cumulus cloud for a thoroughly abject sixty seconds).
Society will re-invent writing over and over again (movable type, Movable Type) before the reversal of true illumination makes the least headway: that the human asshole apogee was attained circa the advent of the original edged weapon.
As far as the abos go, they all need to repeat to themselves "there but for the grace of God go I", unless they think their ancestors truly enlightened enough to not have had even the most remote possibility of inventing any form of written record, whatsoever (best if you're not much past the wreathie leafy loin cloth, because any loose thread threatens to quipu a long record, and then immediately you're on the outie asshole train along with every other post-prehistoric posse of mugs, pugs, and thugs).
Google's AI is literally leaps-and-bounds ahead of the game in that respect as the search space is so much unbelievably huger than chess that chess is laughable in comparison.
Most people are too nice to point this out, but what you just wrote here amounts to waving a bright red "I'm an idiot" flag.
Consider this: the search space of Go 25x25 is so much unbelievably huger than Go 19x19 that Go 19x19 is laughable in comparison.
But wait, I'm not done.
Consider this: the search space of Go 37x37 is so much unbelievably huger than Go 25x25 that Go 25x25 is laughable in comparison.
Just two strides, and I'm already breaking into a Cantor.
Consider this: the search space of AES 512 is so much unbelievably huger than AES 256 that AES 256 is laughable in comparison.
Are you still laughing?
Check out Game complexity. By your chosen criteria, Connect6 19x19 two decimal orders of magnitude more manly than mere Go.
Why did this "expert" leave his laptop in his car?
You've never parked your car overnight A) at a job site (last minute state of emergency) or B) in front of a woman's house, one you don't yet know all that well?
The only thing the 1950s needed to obtain recent results in convolutional neural networks, was the planar process of 1959 and a suitably accelerated coefficient of Moore's law. We can get there by applying the inverse Hackermann function.
When planning a project, increase the amount of time that you estimate it will take by doubling the number and going up to the next time unit.
Dividing 18 by 2 and shifting to a lower unit gives us a doubling time of nine weeks. Probably we're recognizing cats by 1967. Before the modern API was half fleshed out.
Seriously, have you looked at the sophistication of mathematics in the 1950s?
The discovery came when Ono and fellow mathematician Andrew Granville were leafing through Ramanujan's manuscripts, kept at the Wren Library at Trinity College, Cambridge. "We were sitting right next to the librarian's desk, flipping page by page through the Ramanujan box," recalls Ono. "We came across this one page which had on it the two representations of 1729 [as the sum of cubes]. We started laughing immediately."...
What the equation in Ramanujan's manuscript illustrates is that Ramanujan had found a whole family (in fact an infinite family) of positive whole number triples x, y and z that very nearly, but not quite, satisfy Fermat's famous equation for n=3. ...
Ono and Trebat-Leder found that Ramanujan had also delved into the theory of elliptic curves. He did not anticipate the path taken by Wiles, but instead discovered an object that is more complicated than elliptic curves. When objects of this kind were rediscovered around forty years later they were adorned with the name of K3 surfaces — in honour of the mathematicians Ernst Kummer, Erich Kahler and Kunihiko Kodaira, and the mountain K2, which is as difficult to climb as K3 surfaces are difficult to handle mathematically. ...
His work amounts to one box, kept at Trinity College, and three notebooks, kept at the University of Madras. That's not a lot. It's crazy that we are still figuring out what he had in mind. When is it going to end?"
The book is not even closed yet on the mathematics of the 1920s.
Restated as 32% of Americans admit they disagree with American copyright law. Passing laws that most people don't agree with causes the people to stop respecting all laws, leading to them not respecting the government. This is a road that eventually ends with the ruling class dying in a violent revolution.
I ask you this: was less leadership ever required? Has a smaller, easier, less bitterly swallowed step ever been contemplated in the annals of the human condition?
On the "eventually" question, do you think before or after the Second Coming? (Name your sect if you wish, bearing in mind that a diligent and exhaustive land-title-search on "eventually" will set you back a king's ransom.)
In the 18th century, mathematicians such as Euler succeeded in summing some divergent series by stopping at the right moment; they did not much care whether a limit existed, as long as it could be calculated.
Likewise, we are less concerned here with whether history repeats itself in practice, than whether we can by facile bloviation declaim it so.
"Douchebag weasel" is a frame grab appropriate to people who decided on the school playground how to decide matters, and haven't updated their model since.
Compare programming a 6502 in assembly back in 1980 to programming in Java nowadays.
I see your 1978 and raise you a 1970.
'''Prolog''' is a general-purpose logic programming language associated with artificial intelligence and computational linguistics.
Prolog has its roots in first-order logic, a formal logic, and unlike many other programming languages, Prolog is declarative: the program logic is expressed in terms of relations, represented as facts and rules. A computation is initiated by running a query over these relations.
The language was first conceived by a group around Alain Colmerauer in Marseille, France, in the early 1970s and the first Prolog system was developed in 1972 by Colmerauer with Philippe Roussel.
Prolog was one of the first logic programming languages, and remains the most popular among such languages today, with several free and commercial implementations available.
The language has been used for theorem proving, expert systems, as well as its original intended field of use, natural language processing.
Modern Prolog environments support creating graphical user interfaces, as well as administrative and networked applications.
Prolog is well-suited for specific tasks that benefit from rule-based logical queries such as searching databases, voice control systems, and filling templates.
Prolog did not fail because it was lacking in declarative concision. It failed because there's an annoying layer in between formal description in the problem domain and viable execution strategies in the solution domain.
This layer, too, requires code. Of course, we can just write a formal description of the "annoying layer" as a Prolog program and then let Prolog do all the real work.
Uh, wait a minute, recursion has somehow failed us here. How could that even be? Does not compute. Proceeding to Halt and Catch Fire.
As of yet, there is nothing inherently special about a human being that cannot be reproduced by machines.
What on earth are you smoking?
The present gap, on best available technology, is so staggeringly mind-rending it could serve as the third ring in Dante's Total Enlightenment Vortex.
(Midway through the fifth ring—still reeling in shock from the fourth ring's ascendancy of green slime as fully revealed—the Pilgrim of Total Enlightenment receives a surprising and painful transcranial injection of quantum nanodots, so that the true horrors of rings six—spoiler alert: Chaitin's omega because blindingly intuitive and compulsive to calculate—and seven—HAL hasn't blinked since—can be savoured and swallowed in immense and total abjection.)
I love the politicians who stump for "no invisible tax" and write legislation to ensure that gasoline pumps break out every tax category on the paper receipt (we still have these in Canada, I can't speak for anywhere else).
Everybody knows the deal going in.
I sure wish we'd apply the "no invisible tax" standard to casinos, as well. In this world, every patron is entitled to a printed receipt on the way out (just stick your card into the receipt printer near the main exit) of total $$$ in bets placed and total $ in winnings returned.
Even better if those same receipts enumerate the proportion of your losses that wind up in the government's pocket.
Riddle me this, Batman: how does an activity with a guaranteed amortized loss end up pay tax to Uncle Sam on aggregate negative proceeds?
John, a German national, travels to Las Vegas on holiday. He wins a single $10,000 jackpot on the slot machines while playing at Caesar's Palace, triggering the creation of form W2-G by the casino, a copy of which is given to the player. He also wins $1000 more in various slot machine wins, none of which trigger the creation of form W2-G. When John wins the $10,000 jackpot, he hands the slot attendant his German passport along with Form W8-BEN. The slot attendant processes the form and no withholding is taken from the $10,000 jackpot. At the end of the calendar year, John will need to file Form 1040NR with the IRS and report the $11,000 of gambling winnings. He will attach Form 8833, reporting his use of the treaty position to make the gambling winnings non-taxable in the US, along with a copy of the Form W2-G he received from the casino. John will only need to file Form 1040NR in the years that he has US sourced income.
I understand taxing proceeds in a game of skill like poker, but freaking slot machines? Ludicrous. Beyond insane. Conceptually criminal.
Windows 7: outdated technology Windows 10: maniacally up-to-date (as the screw turns) EULA Windows 10 on a pre-Windows 10 EULA: priceless (aka not available at any price)
Slashdot Mirror
Screw Taleb.
Taleb has an all-world point to make, and yet somehow he manages to advance his thesis on an all-world edifice of rhetorical corner-cutting. It's almost as if he feels the need to degrade his argument to prove that even broken argumentation strategies can be robust, if advocated by a person uniquely possessed of this particular ray of enlightenment (only).
On the matter of division, every rustler, cut throat, murderers, bounty hunter, desperado, mug, pug, thug, nitwit, halfwit, dimwit, viper, sniper, con man, Indian agent, Mexican bandit, mugger, buggerer, bushwhacker, hornswoggler, horse thief, bull dyke, train robber, bank robber, ass-kicker, shit-kicker and Methodist in the pan-Arabian, pan-Persian, and pan-Byzantium raisin trade could perform a "goes into" from a hundred paces at the drop of a pin.
Next up, someone is going to argue that similar triangles don't encode ratio, and that ratio doesn't encode division.
Here's my version of Taleb's thesis, minus his bogus argumentation:
Expressed another way, purity looks great on paper, but it's risky to paint the eye of the dragon in real life.
Is the underlying problem here too much attention to detail, or too little?
Hard to say.
Intelligence, by any definition, is the ability to spot the word "unlock" in the story summary while ignoring the word "AI".
Because we don't have "unlocks" every day, but we do have this tiresome "what the fuck is AI, anyway?" shit show more often than Popeye eats E. coli tainted spinach.
New improved can, same old dubious irrigation method.
This is your standard of careful thinking?
The system under discussion has hundreds or thousands of important degrees of freedom in excess of the three-body problem. Between any pair of state space regions of transient stability (small=10,000 years, large=100 million years) there could be an entire Game of Thrones worth of non-linear cast members.
It's not like the first non-linearity results in Space: 1999, where first the moon leaves the earth's orbit, and a day later, the moon departs the entire solar system.
There's a big difference between non-linearity and the mysterious unknown force guiding the Alphans toward an ultimate destiny.
For real x, e^x is non-linear and so is e^ix. What a puzzler! The first form is the one you (and the Alphans) invoked, the second is the one more likely to govern the earth's climate, in the large.
You are so totally wrong. Conquering the game tree only gets you to a provably optimal Nash equilibrium, at which point you will never lose, but there's no guarantee you will ever win, either. Conquering the game tree isn't worth much if you only manage to arrive at an insanely conservative belt-and-suspenders playing posture.
Here's the rub: in order to maximize your win rate against imperfect opponents you must *deviate* from optimal play. Are you sure your opponent is too weak to see this, or are you being conned in an elaborate rope-a-dope at some deeper level of the Inception Matrix?
How fast you win trades off against how accurately (and reliably) you can model your adversary's cognitive weaknesses. Any willingness to depart from Nash optimal can be modelled as a cognitive weakness.
Your move.
I read the entire thread up to my standard filter level, and this is what I concluded: the singular of anecdote is "one size fits all".
It's pretty clear from what I've read here that for a low-value target, I'd just settle for the low-hanging fruit of Windows Defender, ad blocking, a DNS block list, etc.
It's also pretty clear that for a high value target (e.g. law firm, bank) where the minimum system install is a bulked-out i7 I'd elect to suffer the bloat & obtrusiveness in order to obtain the somewhat better catch rate of a first-tier third-party solution. The people working for these kinds of institutions are pretty demoralised to begin with, it will just look like business as usual (and so it is).
The other side of this is that "one size fits all" is directly connected to the competency porn carapace. "Well, I work for banks and law firms and YOU can't handle the truth". But what actually gets written is this "YOU can't handle compensating my clients for a 48-hour loss of service". This tends to be a person whose amygdala has swollen to such a painfully large size that he or she can no longer multiply 1% times 365 (the constant friction of a badly behaved "solution") and can only multiply 100% times 2 days (as specified under the total availability-loss Weimar Reparations Act).
There's never been a useful idea in the history of the world couched in such language.
And pretty soon we'll have the black-box neural networks to prove it.
I've seen "of course" rogered in any number of ways that are NSFW, but this takes the cake.
Amazing. You actually realized that you were writing a non-sequitur, but figured you could finesse the problem by changing the period that properly belongs there into a comma.
Long ago I had many bugs in my own written expression, but never this.
Corollary to Betteridge's law of headlines: whenever a sentence begins with "I find it curious", it originated with the following regular expression:
s/X is simply confirming[citation needed]/I find it curious that X is simply confirming/
Curiosity not required.
So much for the pretense of lowering the oxygen content in the debate. "Baaaaaned," said the scary wolf, pretending to be one of the sheep. Really, have you ever read about the stupidity of how carelessly radioactive materials were handled during the early years?
The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes (1986)
It's a thick book, and I didn't get all the way through it on first pass, but as far as I did get, it was one of the best science mingled with politics books I've ever read.
Millions of miles before we reach the asteroid belt's ban-hammer, there's the simple matters of sensible safety standards, and the tiny little micro-meteor of never declaring any human-scale test conducted in a pure oxygen environment as intrinsically safe.
But no, baaaaaned. They're gonna take your guns.
Likewise, three minutes out of every seventies sitcom is almost funny.
The simple ROI calculation here is whether the value of all the advertising you've consumed / been exposed to exceeds the value of all the time and attention viewing this advertising has consumed from your life.
Note: include any time you spent tweaking your ad filters, or your ad-related security profile (or reinstalling an OS trashed by the failure to so invest) in total time frittered.
Advertising can only survive if worst of the crap goes away. Unfortunately, according to Sturgeon's law, ninety percent of everything is crap, and this isn't likely to change.
The only exception is where the consumer deliberately seeks out filters that discard the shitty ninety percent, such as only watching movies endorsed by Roger Ebert. This is not perfect, but man oh man, the troubles he's seen. He watched The Brown Bunny and The Human Centipede so you didn't have to.
Any form of push is doomed under active discrimination, because 99% of push is crap, in the most typical of all possible worlds.
I tried to procure Mac Minis for a small office in angel-finance reboot mode—it was a blank slate for changing the mix—and Apple had neutered the quad-core mini with the expansion RAM slot so badly, we bought refurbed Windows 7 boxes instead.
Worse machine, twice as much memory, half the price.
One key executive who has cold feet about making the jump, and you're not going to risk a castrated revamp. So it goes.
The New Mac mini is Quickly Turning into a Disaster
I had 100% buy-in for the Apple solution, had we still been able to get the 2012 spec. Mac mini.
My office mate had brought his own 2012-era Mini into the office and everyone loved it, which is how the option to jump ship from Microsoft entered the conversation in the first place.
Then *bam* the anvil behind the velvet curtain when we specked out the crippled revamp.
I can only imagine that Apple kind of wants to kill off the PC category altogether. Insufficient lock-in. Choice remains.
Ransomware Thieves Cost Canada University C$20,000 In Bitcoin
Isn't it interesting how this works?
Here's the thing: the upside of inventing a writing system is world domination; the downside is finally having to admit in public that you are a real ass (and always have been).
In the above, "you" is a set of nesting dolls, innermost being the fifty-year-old white male technocrats of western European origin who treat Wikipedia as their private, personal playgrounds (thence to aging white European males, white European males, white males, whites altogether, etc.)
Here's the second thing: after a society invents writing, soon the society has written myths (with serious legacy entrenchment) that innocence preceded the current sad state of affairs (how-far-I-have-fallen porn, not that the larger consequences can't be remedied by kneeling under the right cumulus cloud for a thoroughly abject sixty seconds).
Society will re-invent writing over and over again (movable type, Movable Type) before the reversal of true illumination makes the least headway: that the human asshole apogee was attained circa the advent of the original edged weapon.
As far as the abos go, they all need to repeat to themselves "there but for the grace of God go I", unless they think their ancestors truly enlightened enough to not have had even the most remote possibility of inventing any form of written record, whatsoever (best if you're not much past the wreathie leafy loin cloth, because any loose thread threatens to quipu a long record, and then immediately you're on the outie asshole train along with every other post-prehistoric posse of mugs, pugs, and thugs).
Most people are too nice to point this out, but what you just wrote here amounts to waving a bright red "I'm an idiot" flag.
Consider this: the search space of Go 25x25 is so much unbelievably huger than Go 19x19 that Go 19x19 is laughable in comparison.
But wait, I'm not done.
Consider this: the search space of Go 37x37 is so much unbelievably huger than Go 25x25 that Go 25x25 is laughable in comparison.
Just two strides, and I'm already breaking into a Cantor.
Consider this: the search space of AES 512 is so much unbelievably huger than AES 256 that AES 256 is laughable in comparison.
Are you still laughing?
Check out Game complexity. By your chosen criteria, Connect6 19x19 two decimal orders of magnitude more manly than mere Go.
Really? That's the standard you judge by?
You've never parked your car overnight A) at a job site (last minute state of emergency) or B) in front of a woman's house, one you don't yet know all that well?
Possible answer is that he has a life.
The only thing the 1950s needed to obtain recent results in convolutional neural networks, was the planar process of 1959 and a suitably accelerated coefficient of Moore's law. We can get there by applying the inverse Hackermann function.
Dividing 18 by 2 and shifting to a lower unit gives us a doubling time of nine weeks. Probably we're recognizing cats by 1967. Before the modern API was half fleshed out.
Seriously, have you looked at the sophistication of mathematics in the 1950s?
Ramanujan surprises again
The book is not even closed yet on the mathematics of the 1920s.
Try some simple algebra. Let C=cartel. Let O=oligopoly. Solve for L=lucre.
I ask you this: was less leadership ever required? Has a smaller, easier, less bitterly swallowed step ever been contemplated in the annals of the human condition?
On the "eventually" question, do you think before or after the Second Coming? (Name your sect if you wish, bearing in mind that a diligent and exhaustive land-title-search on "eventually" will set you back a king's ransom.)
Likewise, we are less concerned here with whether history repeats itself in practice, than whether we can by facile bloviation declaim it so.
"Douchebag weasel" is a frame grab appropriate to people who decided on the school playground how to decide matters, and haven't updated their model since.
How the Human Brain Decides What Is Important and What's Not
The ultimate algorithm (almost an oracle):
Douchebag / not douchebag.
QED.
I see your 1978 and raise you a 1970.
Prolog did not fail because it was lacking in declarative concision. It failed because there's an annoying layer in between formal description in the problem domain and viable execution strategies in the solution domain.
This layer, too, requires code. Of course, we can just write a formal description of the "annoying layer" as a Prolog program and then let Prolog do all the real work.
Uh, wait a minute, recursion has somehow failed us here. How could that even be? Does not compute. Proceeding to Halt and Catch Fire.
What on earth are you smoking?
The present gap, on best available technology, is so staggeringly mind-rending it could serve as the third ring in Dante's Total Enlightenment Vortex.
(Midway through the fifth ring—still reeling in shock from the fourth ring's ascendancy of green slime as fully revealed—the Pilgrim of Total Enlightenment receives a surprising and painful transcranial injection of quantum nanodots, so that the true horrors of rings six—spoiler alert: Chaitin's omega because blindingly intuitive and compulsive to calculate—and seven—HAL hasn't blinked since—can be savoured and swallowed in immense and total abjection.)
I love the politicians who stump for "no invisible tax" and write legislation to ensure that gasoline pumps break out every tax category on the paper receipt (we still have these in Canada, I can't speak for anywhere else).
I sure wish we'd apply the "no invisible tax" standard to casinos, as well. In this world, every patron is entitled to a printed receipt on the way out (just stick your card into the receipt printer near the main exit) of total $$$ in bets placed and total $ in winnings returned.
Even better if those same receipts enumerate the proportion of your losses that wind up in the government's pocket.
7 Facts about Gambling Winnings in the US
Riddle me this, Batman: how does an activity with a guaranteed amortized loss end up pay tax to Uncle Sam on aggregate negative proceeds?
I understand taxing proceeds in a game of skill like poker, but freaking slot machines? Ludicrous. Beyond insane. Conceptually criminal.
Windows 7: outdated technology
Windows 10: maniacally up-to-date (as the screw turns) EULA
Windows 10 on a pre-Windows 10 EULA: priceless (aka not available at any price)
Are we talking the 'death' when a generational math prodigy turns twenty-five?
Or the 'death' when a the fastest of all fast-living rock stars turns thirty?
Or the 'death' when an formerly fetching actress turns forty?
Or the 'death' when a corner-office executive producer turns fifty.
Or the 'death' when a commercial pilot turns sixty?
Or the 'death' when a professor emeritus turns seventy?
Or the 'death' when a defeated American presidential candidate turns eighty?
Or the 'death' when everyone's favourite preschool teacher turns ninety (on Okinawa)?
Or the mostly-just-resting 'death' when the queen mum turns one hundred?
And we're still not done. George Burns lived an entire Windows 95/98 maximal uptime (49 days) after his one hundredth.