Hmm, I recall learning the seven shuffle result when I was in math grad school in the 80s (from Prof Diaconus himself.) Did he not publish it until '92?
Often "the code is trying to..." is just shorthand for "the person(s) who coded this had the code to do...."
It is always risky to speak informally about a formal system, but it is also a risk to be too formal - humans have a much harder time following formal language. The formal language, indeed, *is* the code, and the reason we don't just talk in code is that our brains are not wired that way.
Saw this tweet: "Glad Google's tracking Santa now to faux-compete w/NORAD's tracker. Finally a "choice" bt govt or private omnisurveillence propaganda."
https://twitter.com/emptywheel...
Wish I could delete this comment of mine - I conflated two CBS reporters. It was Lara Logan who got horribly played by a fraudster pedaling absolute falsehoods.
She got played by bad sources pedaling BS stories about Benghazi. This for a report that made it on the air. Yet she insists that CBS suppressed other stories of hers. Were they suppressed because they were bad reporting, or for political reasons?
Since leaving CBS, she has gotten wilder about her claims.
She really needs to have been hacked, to give herself credibility. If the government hacked her computer, it would validate everything she has said. If the government is not out to get her, she's indistinguishable from any other terrible journalist.
What's funny is how breathlessly the conservative press is running with this video. They obviously have no knowledge about what an actual computer hack looks like. Pathetic.
Why would that relationship be there? One CPU cycle is more akin to a single internal reaction in a cell. The idea that our brains are *not* doing complex calculations quite a lot is the misconception here. A single CPU cycle is not enough to even begin to do a useful computation, while the human brain can hit a 100-mile fastball with less than a second of brain computation.
The real difference is that a computer AI can be multi-tasking in a way the brain can't. So, even if conversations with the human world would be slow, they could be processed separately, and wouldn't require the "full" attention. (One of the things I would have loved in "Her" is if they showed us this multitasking. At one point, the AI is singing a song, and the lead starts up a conversation. She stops singing and talks, but it would have been funny and alien if she just put her singing into "background music" mode, and then talking while singing. Lack of imagination there.)
We've got modes of communication which are much slower. Consider a book, which was written years ago.
Finally, why ascribe impatience to an AI?
I'm firmly of the opinion that you should learn as many different programming languages as you can early on, so you learn how to think in each language and understand what the strengths and weaknesses of langauges are.
Honestly, if you learn on language really well, you'll have a niche, but you won't be able to grow nearly as well as if you have loads of experience working in different languages.
The subject of this article is wrong - we do not know that Wolfram's 2,3 Turing Machine is not universal. We only know (assuming the proof really is in error) that there is no proof either way as to whether it is universal.
Is basically: sin^2(A), where A is the angle between the lines. Basic trig identities then says that this is (1-cos(2A))/2.
His argument that circles and angles are non-intuitive, though, is a bit of a stretch. I think we intuitively understand rotational symmetry.
His argument that you can apply this theory to other fields is true, except for the fact that the spread assumes that a^2+b^2 != 0 when a or b !=0. But that doesn't hold in lots of fields. What sense does it make to have a geometry that applies to Z/3 but not Z/5? I'm really not sure. It can't be used for complex numbers.
What he's basically saying is that you can do a lot of this stuff without ever taking square roots. I guess that's true, and it is quite a nice alternate view on the trig world, but I don't think it is a good way to teach the subject.
Actually, "fundamentalist" does mean you check your brain at the door - a fundamentalist Christian believes in the literal truth of the bible, which means you can't also believe in evolution, the big bang, the scientific age of the earth, or any of a number of things.
If you call yourself a "fundamentalist" without taking the bible literally, then you are just misusing the term.
Now, a fundamentalist can certainly be open-minded enough to listen to contradictions to the bible without his head exploding, but he cannot believe the bible is literally wrong or he is not a fundamentalist.
Slashdot Mirror
The PDF says it is from 2015.
Hmm, I recall learning the seven shuffle result when I was in math grad school in the 80s (from Prof Diaconus himself.) Did he not publish it until '92?
Often "the code is trying to..." is just shorthand for "the person(s) who coded this had the code to do...." It is always risky to speak informally about a formal system, but it is also a risk to be too formal - humans have a much harder time following formal language. The formal language, indeed, *is* the code, and the reason we don't just talk in code is that our brains are not wired that way.
Saw this tweet: "Glad Google's tracking Santa now to faux-compete w/NORAD's tracker. Finally a "choice" bt govt or private omnisurveillence propaganda." https://twitter.com/emptywheel...
Not tongue-and-cheek.
Wish I could delete this comment of mine - I conflated two CBS reporters. It was Lara Logan who got horribly played by a fraudster pedaling absolute falsehoods.
She got played by bad sources pedaling BS stories about Benghazi. This for a report that made it on the air. Yet she insists that CBS suppressed other stories of hers. Were they suppressed because they were bad reporting, or for political reasons? Since leaving CBS, she has gotten wilder about her claims. She really needs to have been hacked, to give herself credibility. If the government hacked her computer, it would validate everything she has said. If the government is not out to get her, she's indistinguishable from any other terrible journalist. What's funny is how breathlessly the conservative press is running with this video. They obviously have no knowledge about what an actual computer hack looks like. Pathetic.
Why would that relationship be there? One CPU cycle is more akin to a single internal reaction in a cell. The idea that our brains are *not* doing complex calculations quite a lot is the misconception here. A single CPU cycle is not enough to even begin to do a useful computation, while the human brain can hit a 100-mile fastball with less than a second of brain computation. The real difference is that a computer AI can be multi-tasking in a way the brain can't. So, even if conversations with the human world would be slow, they could be processed separately, and wouldn't require the "full" attention. (One of the things I would have loved in "Her" is if they showed us this multitasking. At one point, the AI is singing a song, and the lead starts up a conversation. She stops singing and talks, but it would have been funny and alien if she just put her singing into "background music" mode, and then talking while singing. Lack of imagination there.) We've got modes of communication which are much slower. Consider a book, which was written years ago. Finally, why ascribe impatience to an AI?
From an Onion talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Well, that was a boring boring answer.
I'm firmly of the opinion that you should learn as many different programming languages as you can early on, so you learn how to think in each language and understand what the strengths and weaknesses of langauges are. Honestly, if you learn on language really well, you'll have a niche, but you won't be able to grow nearly as well as if you have loads of experience working in different languages.
Use an interpreted language for most of the beginning teaching. Especially if the language has a shell where the user can tinker.
Because you've been 'saying it' on white-on-white text.
The subject of this article is wrong - we do not know that Wolfram's 2,3 Turing Machine is not universal. We only know (assuming the proof really is in error) that there is no proof either way as to whether it is universal.
McCain's site design has been dubbed 'Stormtrooper chic.'
When will there be a MMORPG that is so complicated that it will require in-game historians to document the deeds of the players?
I recall reading that some theaters won't show NC-17s because local papers won't carry advertisements for NC-17 movies.
Is basically: sin^2(A), where A is the angle between the lines. Basic trig identities then says that this is (1-cos(2A))/2. His argument that circles and angles are non-intuitive, though, is a bit of a stretch. I think we intuitively understand rotational symmetry. His argument that you can apply this theory to other fields is true, except for the fact that the spread assumes that a^2+b^2 != 0 when a or b !=0. But that doesn't hold in lots of fields. What sense does it make to have a geometry that applies to Z/3 but not Z/5? I'm really not sure. It can't be used for complex numbers. What he's basically saying is that you can do a lot of this stuff without ever taking square roots. I guess that's true, and it is quite a nice alternate view on the trig world, but I don't think it is a good way to teach the subject.
Why can't something be both science and art?
I'd suggest that the word 'craft' is the best chosen, because when I see really good code, it's like looking at really good craftmanship.
This is a typical studio puff piece. I hope the movie is good, but this article is not close to raising my expectations.
Actually, "fundamentalist" does mean you check your brain at the door - a fundamentalist Christian believes in the literal truth of the bible, which means you can't also believe in evolution, the big bang, the scientific age of the earth, or any of a number of things.
If you call yourself a "fundamentalist" without taking the bible literally, then you are just misusing the term.
Now, a fundamentalist can certainly be open-minded enough to listen to contradictions to the bible without his head exploding, but he cannot believe the bible is literally wrong or he is not a fundamentalist.
It's probably easier to get a job with 15 days vacation...