This may be a bit too "abstract" but using mathematics to think about mathematics (ie metamathematics, philosophy of mathematics ...which is just more mathematics) is definitely the way to go.
2 karma · joined January 13, 2022
https://github.com/ExistentialAudio/BlackHole
It works exactly the same.
I just realized that I've been writing English my whole life with a stroke order.
These days I do everything in pen and paper. I file it in a file cabinet. I think this is what Fermi used to do, could be wrong. It works for me. No dependencies, no installations, no updates, no latency, pretty decent storage and great portability.
I make an effort not to dwell on productivity tools, which feel like spending time to save time in spurious and inconsistent amounts. Yes, I wish I could memorize and remember everything worth knowing and doing. No, sometimes it's nice to forget things and prioritize the information that's in front of me.
b) The best metric is what is most boring and what is most comfortable. Boring tech is good. Boring code is good. Things are more or less defined by their failures than successes with languages. You want to be defined by what doesn't happen in your code because you made cogent decisions.
c) Do most YC write good code? Yeah but that's not what defines their success. Clean code is presentable. Clean code sets a tone. Tests are sometimes snake oil, sometimes valuable. It's hard to assess how valuable a metric is once you become invested in increasing it. No, writing tests won't save you. But decent DevOps will hopefully reduce cognitive load in managing features. Writing unit tests is in my opinion, a nice reprieve in between coding sessions. I look at it as paid downtime.
d) As someone pointed out, there is survivorship bias to consider. It's pretty common for v1 to a complete disaster where nobody knows what they are doing. Most fail and do not attempt v2. Eventually the to-do's and somedays just pile up and you lose to a competitor.
e) Another perspective, almost everyone's code will be some kind of dumpster fire. You'll realize perfect pipelines will always be desirable, as in nobody has one. The only code that is 'bad' is the code you fail to take accountability for.
I have found some success in finding nonconventional programming jobs that have job titles seemingly generated by a bot where free-thinking and drawing up imaginative approaches is appreciated.
Math is everywhere, and every programmer could stand to learn or appreciate more of it so I say to you best of luck in your endeavors but be flexible, since almost nobody knows where they really need math until you explain it to them. A lot of the time math has served me the most because I've already seen a problem or its variants and I know a solution exists.
More obviously, you can't type faster than you can think. Take the effort to prepare your thoughts. Develop a flow for your stream of consciousness. Typing on the fly requires a kind of cadence and rhythm that only comes with developing a proper form.
Honestly best advice is just get a keyboard you're comfortable with. I'm quite fond of my WASD keyboard. The sticky keys on my MacBook Pro just don't cut it.
I learned through doing runs of Mario Teaches Typing so fast that the computer struggled to render frames.
My typing speed's gone down, substantially over the years. I think that's a good thing. I think slower. I pause before I speak. I try to say more with less words. I've also picked up a weird habit of using only my index finger for my right hand but my WPM is still around 100.
Reminds me of the Young Pope's first episode.
"Friendly relationships are dangerous. They lend themselves to ambiguities, misunderstandings, and conflicts, and they always end badly. Formal relationships, on the other hand, are as clear as spring water."
'Communicate' is perhaps a stretch, really what's happening is that in a grid simulation, all the computation is done in parallel from a point to its neighborhoods, with each step simulating exchange of information to alter the state of each cell. For most simple models, this merely entails flipping the state between active and dormant (so 0 and 1) for each cell. And most models only consider adjacent neighborhoods (such as von Neumann or Moore).
That is to say, you can observe complex global behavior based on simple local patterns.
To consciously avoid, is to avoid conscience.
Consider this: a good deal of open datasets are stolen. People had their faces taken without consent. The data was tagged and labelled for pennies per image on some server farm. Wrapping it up in machine learning can effectively black-box what it is you're actually doing.
https://github.com/odomojuli/slack-gpt2-poetry
You can train your own GPT-2 bot using minimaxir's GPT2-simple
One of them is general queries on the latest model, one is Gwern's poetry bot, and the third is trained on toxic/moderated comments and says only sadistic cruel things to me. I don't know why I built the last one.
You might recognize classics such as "Legalize 4Loko 2020" and "BREAD" as featured in Elle magazine.
All on-demand printing. Order goes through Shopify's API to the supply center, order gets fulfilled, shipped. No inventory. Kinda pricey, but zero maintenance. Set and forget.
Find the most extremely dank and niche memes possible so you hit the little nugget inside of someone's brain that makes them want to spend $15-30 on a t-shirt.
A good print would net me somewhere like 300 orders a month. A sweatshirt could go for $50-60. You have options.
I use Markdown + KaTeX to render math and code. I keep everything in files.
Nature is the highest programmer because nature can write pretty fluently in just binary. All nature needs sometimes is something activating and deactivating, which can be things living or dying next to each other. And when nature arrives at a proof that a method is optimal, it arrives at it in a probable amount of time/space. When programs are valid and the proof exists, we have that we find it in nature since it gives a natural advantage to its biological host. We do the same thing but way slower and it requires a bunch of chalkboards and silicon sometimes.
The author, has a number of publications that are biological computation models. You can substitute a computer made of billiard-balls for soldier crabs.
However, the posted solution seems inelegant and uncompelling. Simply iterating in SVG, which can infinitely scalable.
The author expresses apprehension in this closed issue: https://github.com/tom-p-reichel/svg-is-turing-complete/issu...
It is mentioned that they intend to demonstrate this using feComposite in the source code.
There are bits and pieces of how one would prove TC for SVG.
A first step, would be identifying basic operations, as they have done. The next step would be compiling to a tag system, and simulate cyclic tag behavior.
It is expressed elsewhere that the lack of loops would exempt TC. Perhaps it can still be argued through DOM manipulation.
"A mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems."
https://petapixel.com/2016/03/28/many-great-depression-photo...
This article, however, confuses me. I've always been interested on notions of cultural identity and otherness in Japanese history - instead there's this strange constellation of disparate and only somewhat amusing historical anecdotes. The ending upsets me. I've experienced too many different variants and strains of this kind of New Age scientific mysticism clothed in a language of Japanese pseudo-Zen buzzword soup that is usually a segue into discussing their recent mushroom trip. Reading my own words back to myself, this reads as being flippant and dismissive but then I think about the number of times this has actually happened and how it makes me nauseous.
I'm being a bit harsh here, but this is more common than I'd like it to be and I'd really wish people would stop using Japanese religion and spirituality as a crutch for their psychedelic dabbling that always speaks to what feels like religious voyeurism.
I should speak more specifically as to why this is upsetting. There is a vein of thought in Japanese spirituality and to some degree, the larger whole of Asian mysticism that lends itself to this sort of ambiguity and perhaps more accessible kind of rigorous contemplation. I think a key observation would be an example like Zen koans where perhaps the pursuit of meaning and the act of moving towards insight is in itself valuable even if you never actually obtain a perfect idea of what it is you're supposed to get out of anything. As if to say, you're not supposed to suppose it at all would be one interpretation. So this cuts a few ways. On one hand, some practitioners can wave their hands around and speak profusely on very little. On the other hand, there's a great deal of credence towards what you give is what you get and ultimately who is to judge how people make sense of what imbues them with a state of wonder?
What upsets me is the tone of the article is monotonous and routine. It is all too familiar. The preamble bearing the quotations of German nihilism of some sort. A remarkably shallow critique of Japan's cultural and historical identity lacking the rigor to appropriately challenge what is deserving towards its reticence to admit its racism. And ultimately what does the passage of words sublimate into? A sandwich containing extraneous descriptions of shit and pleonasm.