coderatlarge

not a bad idea if your average file size is a terabyte and there’s never a sure way to get a clean binary.

one of the things i took away about category theory is that it allows you to avoid repeating certain arguments which boil down to so-called “abstract nonsense” ie they have nothing to do with the specific objects you’re dealing with but rather are a consequence of very generic mapping relationships between them. maybe better versed people can give specifics.

as a very broad example there are multiple ways to define a “homology” (ex simplicial, singular, etc) functor associating certain groups to topological spaces as invariants. but the arguments needed to prove properties of the relationships between those groups can be derived from very general properties of the definitions and don’t need to be re-argued from the very fine definitions of each type of homology.

i think.

also note the hospital system is extremely paranoid about data management and probably wouldn’t allow a pcp to have mri data on a laptop. even specialists seem to only review mri on hospital desktops.

that’s heartening. do you believe the average pcp is competent to review an mri and act on it given the specialist’s report?

as i said if you want infinite dimensional things like Fourier transforms acting on function spaces you may benefit from additional abstraction. but even those people will benefit from having learned Rn first.

i’m as much with bourbaki as the next guy. but that’s not really how most engineers learn in practice.

as for treating linear maps between finite dimensional spaces as vectors that’s quite straightforward to do in coordinate terms.

again i refer you to the classics like Golub and van Lean that have been reprinted many many times and educated generations.

even Golub and van Loan basically start there.

if you know how to handle real or complex coordinate vectors and matrices you’re one only isomorphism away (aka choice of basis) from dealing with an “abstract” vector space (except if you want to talk about finite fields or infinite dimensions). it seems like a really good starting point for many learners’ backgrounds…

my personal pet theory is that china could in principle block whatever they wanted, but, decide instead to block only sometimes and with some random noise thrown in, if only to impose a tax or cost on trying to connect out but to have some plausible deniability on not having it be impossible while still retaining the option of turning the dial to 11 if/when need be.

my pcp doesn’t even have the tools to view an mri even though part of a hospital system.

vpn appears to only work sporadically in china.

wow that’s dark

what are these godel works you speak of?

i make a code analogy because i believe the US was intended as a country of ideas and laws and systems, as opposed to the legacy of arbitrary ruling classes and colonial extraction that it separated itself from. pessimistically one might worry there is simply no system of governance that can scale to this size population and still espouse the stated core values. optimistically one hopes that we could be just a few amendments away from a more perfect union that takes into account technology and mechanisms of communication like x/twitter etc that can allow a single person with access to sufficiently large capital reserves to interpose themselves between the people and their elected representatives.

without the exploit in hand few would believe the vuln was actionable if only because it hadn’t been used before.

i remember visiting zurich once and standing at a light rail station when the next train was one minute overdue and all the people waiting were looking at their watches in total disbelief and consternation. warms my sla-minded heart :)

consumers are harmed because Apple is forced to build in a way that expands its qa surface to include hypothetical tbd third-party integrations thus worsening their products, and surely opening up to more fines by the same EU who set them up like this in the first place.

those who stand to benefit from unjust laws are rarely the ones who acknowledge their nature.

in your previous response you seem to claim that samsung is an insignificant player in the smartphone market, and that integrating third-party app stores doesn’t require divulging security-related IP so i’m going to drop the mic right here.

if nothing else, one has to give the ruling coalition credit for debugging the vaunted constitutional system. maybe the winning argument for the opposition will be to amend away all the vulnerabilities that were just exploited.

i wasn’t intending to say that the regulations favor a specific current competitor but rather that they are intended to force apple to build in a way that favors a certain kind of potential competitor who can only operate in Europe. from a pure engineering perspective i think it’s fairly well-established that if you design, build, and test for a limited set of deployment conditions you end up with a higher quality product. which bit of wisdom apple has used decade after decade to deliver systems that delight end-users who do not relish the idea of mixing and matching and hoping the interpretation of “standards“ worked out well enough in their particular case.

there are just and unjust laws.

i agree that to operate in a country (or block of countries) a company must be prepared to respect even the unjust laws. which apple has obviously been willing to do all day long in many parts of the world.

in this case, it really seems to me like the EU is harming consumers who benefit from the coherently-designed, safe (as compared to androland) walled garden in favor of some fairly overtly xenophobic power play against incumbents local champions cannot compete with on the merits. IMO this type of action directly invites retaliation against European companies and interests abroad.

in the related cases of airdrop interop and alternate stores, it is certainly being required that apple release its proprietary IP to competitors.

there are plenty of hungry competitors in the smartphone market beyond apple and google including Samsung huawei and scores of others.

i recognize freedom (especially as it relates to commerce) is a social construct and therefore has limits defined by society. At the same time, it does seem like in this instance at least the EU wants to have it both ways: ie it wants to be seen as operating on high-minded “principles” yet be allowed to justify fairly transparently self-interested industrial policy actions under the guise of “protection from monopolists”.

i’m not a fan of apple, but they do build and own their IP and i respect their right to license it on terms they decide. Is it not expropriating them to suddenly say “mighty fine business you made there mister, your competitors who happen to be our citizens would like a piece of that so how about you just hand over some chunks of it so nothing bad should happen to the rest of it?”

for the sake of debate: if androland is available across the way, must disneyland provide skybridges so its guests can immediately leave its own attractions and frequent its competitors’ instead?

should disneyland also be required to reserve spaces for competing attractions?

seems to me this alone is a show-stopper besides all the other terrible implications:

“the best estimates show around a 10 percent false positive rate for client-side scanning – which could see a huge number of people accused of crimes they didn't commit.”

that sounds like a super-powerful feature especially for multithreaded debugging though i’ve never used anything like it.

thanks for the pointers glad to hear it’s all still there

i haven’t seen this type of capability used in too many companies tbh and it seems like a lot of opportunity to improve stability and debugging speed and even code exploration/learning (did i break something ?)

if a citizen is traveling to another country they shouldn’t be allowed access to their utility bill on the road??

isn’t this essentially a warrantless search of any bystander who happens to connect to the tower? basically random, digital stop-and-frisk?

windbg used to offer scripting capabilities that teams could use to trigger validation of any number of internal data structures essentially at every breakpoint or watchpoint trigger. it was a tremendous way to detect subtle state corruption. and sharing scripts across teams was also a way to share knowledge of a complex binary that was often not encoded in asserts or other aspects of the codebase.

kind of a “first contact” story in some respects with lots of speculation about consciousness and symbolic communication.

for me, a number of ideas not seen in other scifi. curious if others feel the same way.

decent quality audiobook available on libby.

interesting parallels with “Arrival” without the time travel aspects.

first time i read about AI slave ships.