baddash

Curious about your startup; how are you planning to solve these issues?

appreciate it, thanks

So, as someone who is curious but have no idea of the theoretical background here.. what should I learn in order to help me understand the code + use this language in a basic way? I think the idea of being able to construct proofs is pretty cool but I'm pretty lost here.

That's a bold assertion. Also a huge oversimplification. How do not some but ALL problems that exist stem from this? How about the problems that have nothing to do with man?

Look up SPARC and the CFS. It sounds like they're doing exactly what you're describing.

Interesting thought. On the one hand, its lighting (or lack thereof) causes it to visually blend in with its surroundings; it doesn't stand out at all and functions as a piece of art. But its content can metaphorically yell at a person.

I think calm technology is characterized by tech which is easily ignorable/does not outwardly communicate unless the user wants to interact with it. Given that the display effectively functions as a piece of art unless someone decides to look at and read it, I don't think it would contradict with this characterization. The stress that would be responsible for violating the spirit of calm technology only exists after a person decides to read the display.

This reminds me of a scenario described by Alfie Kohn in "No Contest: The Case Against Competition". If I recall correctly, he describes how people looking for jobs actually are more successful if they work for mutual success within the context of a network like this one. It makes me curious: are there other job-searching networks that exist where people can work for each others' benefit? Is there a general one for any job-seeker?

>Just because a robot can do the same job doesn’t make an activity dehumanizing - you seem to merely be justifying a negative view.

Well, you asked "why would safely and efficiently performing your job be dehumanizing?" as if it somehow the fact that those two qualities are meritorious precludes that characterization. That's why I brought up robots, because they are a clear counter example to your implicit claim. Also, to be fair, I did ask if I was wrong to assume that was indeed your claim...

>You’re also ignoring that the point of pointing and calling is precisely to keep you from responding robotically...

Actually, here you're conflating robotically with habitually or instinctively or carelessly. Consider that robots can respond to deviations as edge cases, in a manner analogous to conditional statements; such a response would have to be robotic, wouldn't it? Robots can very obviously handle deviations if they're programmed to, so that was a bad example.

> Using motion and language to amplify our natural faculties for best effect at a social purpose sounds pretty human to me.

I agree the creative use of this is human, but what I'm asserting is that this can be done to a dehumanizing end. Humanity created robots.

> I’m curious, what activity do you view as not dehumanizing?

Inherently human activities such as creating knowledge of other people.

> Why would safely and efficiently performing your job be dehumanizing?

Robots can safely and efficiently perform their job. And do it way better than humans in some areas. Being a cog in a well-oiled machine that works efficiently sounds almost like a perfect example of dehumanization.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I interpret your general stance as: "Doing your job well has merit and value, so it shouldn't be viewed as dehumanizing." As a counterpoint, I bring up robots again: they do their job well, and that has merit and value. However, they have no humanity whatsoever. So what justifies your stance?

Saying this is unreadable is untrue. Also, I agree clear communication is important, but in this case it is highly trivial; if you don't know something that someone is referencing, a quick Google search immediately clarifies it. This is much like the fight couples have over keeping a toilet seat up or down: it doesn't really matter what you do or who does it. Because of that, you come across as querulous.

As an aside, I think that there are much more important factors to consider in regard to clarity and readability. I believe some of those are accurate articulation and logical tractability of ideas communicated.

This obviously works really well, but it sounds dehumanizing. I was wondering, is it right to dehumanize for the sake of running things smoothly? Or should it be the case that workers' humanity should be respected, and therefore sacrifice this world-class efficiency? You may think the latter is obviously right, but consider that the transportation system plays a part in powering the activity of civilization, so it's pretty important to have running well, to say the least.

The above is based off of it actually being dehumanizing. Maybe it isn't, and if you think so I want to hear why, but when I imagine seeing it and doing it, it feels very robotic. Imagine doing it for hours every day of every week, and having those around you expect to keep it up..

thanks :D

What were the responses by Google to those three questions?

Hey, this course looks really interesting! Although I'm hesitating to take it because I'm not sure what the difference is between Machine Learning and Deep Learning. Can anyone explain?

Why's there no chance? Aren't there any strategies out there that can be tried out?

How were you involved in the warez scene? How did things work, and how have they changed? Stories that are part of the history of the internet are always intriguing to me so I'm really interested in hearing about that.

Why did they shut off the API? Any reason given?

Monopolized news distribution? How so? Aren't there many sites which provide news such as reddit, Twitter, Hacker News ;) etc?

Sweet, thanks

It definitely is. This kind of advertising is pretty commonplace, you can see it all over reddit. This guy just happened to explicitly say it was.

Just a note: in the e-mail thread, it's only stated as a possibility that this patchset will be implemented in time for GCC 9. The only real news is that this patchset has been greenlit.

By the way; I'm confused trying to make sense of the effects of this patchset. In Andrew Stubbs' original e-mail, he states that the patchset which is discussed in this e-mail thread is for the "non-OpenACC/OpenMP portions" of the port. Not only that, but only C and Fortran are supported, C++ is explicitly unsupported, and everything else is untested.

So then, that means definite effects of implementing this patchset will be that the front-end which is non-OpenACC/OpenMP for C and Fortran will be operational, plus whatever the effects are of the patches with unspecified details for different areas (backend, config, and testsuite) which he mentioned briefly.

Given these definite effects, what are the noteworthy or most important effects of them? How much does this "power on" GCN?

Why'd they do this?

Oh I didn’t notice that option, cool.

By the way, what was your motivation for creating this?

In what way do you choose to live with said money?

Yeah... I had thought that this would be a good way to share messages secretly, but the thing is the moves are nonsensical, so anyone who bothered to check out what the game progresses would know something is up and would google "Chess message encoding" (the fifth result is the blog post for it, lol).

If the moves actually made sense, this would be a lot more useful. There's probably something that can measure how good a move is, so I guess what you can do is make sure that the moves you use to form a message are above a certain threshold. That way, someone looking into the moves wouldn't immediately know that they're being used to encrypt messages. But honestly other than that, I dunno what you can use it for.

The article wasn't really worth the time. It tried to make a mountain out of a molehill: Netflix gave badges for watching children's programs as a test of a feature to make Netflix more appealing to watch. The author of the article Yohana Desta just loosely connected it to some narrative where "Netflix is evil and out to zombify your children" for the purpose of, ironically, getting people to read the article because that narrative is more appealing. Just another piece of trash online article designed to catch your eye. No substance, no value. Just throw it in the trash bin and move on.

From the article itself:

"Of course, it's important to bear in mind that 'just about to explode' means something different in cosmic terms versus human terms. It could happen at any time in the... next few hundred thousand years."

So a clickbait title.

So it has its origins in bullshit. Great.

How much can we predict?

"It's obvious that killing all the weakest lifeforms on this planet would cause bad things to happen"

I made what you were stating clearer. Why would not saving endangered species lead to all the weakest lifeforms on the planet going extinct? Is it the fate of all of those lifeforms to go extinct without human intervention?