Godel Incompleteness Theorem and Turing Halting Problem are two faces to the same coin, I intuited. It is deeper than I thought, especially that I forgot about the two godel's incompleteness theorems (not just one.)
Scott Aaranson "popularizes" Kleene's textbook proof of Godel's theorems using Turing machines in his blog:
This sounds like a sure way to enforce a local optimum. If you can't make mistakes and break enough things at a time to change the architecture, in order to fix the architecture itself, it means your architecture is going to be extremely sticky, and there will be no chance that design mistakes will be corrected.
Either your frustration is great, or you have the mind of a jedi. This is without a doubt the most scathing review I've read of agile, and you don't seem to even be trying.
One thing I will try doing soon is to look for job postings of companies, and then look what those companies are looking for, and what domain they're in.
The theory is: maybe I can get product ideas 1) as spin-offs from their general mission, or 2) maybe I'd be able to replace their job posting with a product.
When this was discredited, was there alternative research on how people actually accrue skill, or was this just a dismissal of a claim and no alternate information provided?
It's a shame if this kind of research is not being done, but obviously, it's understandable that a catch-all "how much experience does any skill need to build for anyone?" is not easily, if at all, answerable.
A cool aspect is how this algebra/calculus sheds light that maps(/dictionary/associative-arrays) have an equivalent cardinality to functions and that they are in many ways the same.
How many cores must a CPU have until it's competitive with GPUs?
Those beasts could pretty well open the hell-gates to fully interactive raytracing soon, or not so much?
Of course am not expecting THIS processor to be competitive, but with the interest in raytracing, things might get interesting if this trend of more CPU cores keep on piling up.
I am sure this must be handled somewhere, but why can't malicious observers in this scheme flag honest behavior, creating a vector for denial of service. I suspect that observers must report something that is actually true, but my gut is still saying am missing something more fundamental here.
Sometimes I have a feeling that I should be avoiding division in all cases to begin with, but then, there are cases where it seems all too indispensable. Especially when a value is a measure with an ignored error, division close to zero is almost meaningless.
Is it a realistic goal to try and avoid division in the first place? I don't remember my numerical computing course well enough
The probability of an event could be related to density. High chemical density possibly required for capacity could mean higher gradients which also could have implications on not only intensity of an event, but also on its probability.
Maybe we need the web to be a way to publish basic documents, and then use docker-like thing where people publish apps and you can immediately access them by downloading the upper layers.
What's happening now is the reverse, expanding the Web APIs to become an OS when we already have so many of those. HyperKit, Hyper-V, and Linux containers (or whatever docker) use are already there!
A superset of C++ would be unwise: same issues as those C++ inherited from C!
I imagine something similar to CPY could be created for different domains like:
- Pure functional style (Haskell subset that is usable from C++)
- GC'd higher level gluing code (calls C++ but maybe not necessarily callable from it)
Am sure others are more qualified for suggestions, but I imagine other subsets like some for interfacing with representing relational data querying, different concurrency models (like Go, Erlang...)
Not saying that scuttlebutt is useless, but within the parent's perspective, almost everything applies as well on HTTP and HTTPS. But no one seems to care? I mean, google caches your website on their machines and so on, be it personal or not.
I guess once things become ubiquitous enough, they start to become invisible.
Whois service, I heard recently, was being scrutinized over personal data in the context of GDPR, so it's not ALL invisible.
Why isn't car driving AI put to the same rigour of testing and approval as that of airplanes?
There are far more people on the road than in the sky, and yet, there's formal verification for airplane autopilot code but an accident like this is supposed to be "you couldn't have prevented it either?"
If no one could prevent such a thing, this AI should never drive a car!
Maybe there's merit in a Python version that compiles to JS where we allow engines like V8 to do the optimisation. The dynamic nature of JS maybe enough impedance-MATCH to allow this to happen?
Writing this up, I'll probably get someone suggesting that this is already a reality with some tool. Glad to be taught.
I've kind of wanted to formalize this concept ever since I learned about the Static_single_assignment_form used in compilers for optimisation. Programs may be able to benefit greatly from this in terms of refactoring: it's basically separating concerns (from a mechanical point of view.) Separated concerns can open venues for parallelism!
Thanks for this input. I always love reading things things that get me excited to try and look into stuff I have previously discarded for probably "popular" opinion.
Ethereum (for example) can be used to pay if the contract is fulfilled (e.g an intense computation job.)
1. You need to be able to verify that the other party is honest
2. When the data is intensive, you need to make sure that the computation is opaque to the computer. This is still an active research area, I believe. One of the keywords I associate with it is homomorphic encryption. Alternatively, consensus or verification can be done, with other zero-knowledge proofs or something similar perhaps.
Will a hyper connected fiber optic globally available IPv6 enabled internet convert the globe into a distributed data center (or just a real network) instead of the clusters of centralization?
Maybe, akin to all the new startup's that don't actually own the infrastructure (Uber/Cars, Airbnb/Housing, Amazon/Retail), a startup could enable with the existing resources to rent people's machine's to each other.
Since this is talking about basic income, please allow me to digress a little and ask a few things that have been on my mind for a while.
World GDP per capita is $1,400
Only need to make all people capable of 3.5X more productive, and we'd all be able to live at that rate with some universal income + universal work.
Maybe the UBI idea shouldn't be decoupled from universal work. If we truly believe humans are worth giving $5K a month, surely we can devise a way that they can be given that no for free (without inflation, or whatnot, just plain old more distributed production.)
Should making people more productive (distributing the means of production) be concentrated on much more than just redistributing the already existing wealth.
I really hope this release means https://github.com/JetBrains/kotlin-native will get brought onto the express lane!
It's either Kotlin or Swift that will go full cross platform for end user applications (JS/Android/iOS) and Kotlin right now has the advantage! (Swift doesn't officially support the Web story.)
I meant: there must/should be more innovative companies that are targeting more fundamental problems.
Of course every company should be as innovative as maximising profit allows.
To reiterate I meant there ought to be lots more companies with bigger dreams than that of Snap, no matter how innovative Snap is. That Snap IS considered one of the most innovative companies is indicative of the problem.
> Snap, the company that makes the disappearing messaging app Snapchat. Although it is one of the most innovative consumer-focused internet companies
Isn't this part of the problem?
Snap, albeit innovative and fast as they are in creating new paradigms should in no way be the most innovative consumer-facing company.
There's an imbalance here somewhere.
Maybe when it makes sense for everyone to create their own infrastructure, the hold of the five will loosen up. That might require another wave of infrastructure improvements that the huge companies will not be able to compete with the collective many.
But that's quite circular. I have never found a cup that would overspill, if not poured to beyond its capacity.
I think I understand the sympathy you're trying to convey, and the insight that you should try to explain things to the capacity of the other people. It's a mine field of perceived ability and all, but yeah.