5,715 karma · joined December 15, 2013
I really don't feel like I can affect anything at all. First of all, even if we assume for the sake of argument that voting for MEPs is important, it's really hard to judge what you are voting for. It's not like they come with clear agendas that people carefully evaluate before they decide how to vote. It's a long running joke how USA elections are choosing between "a giant douche and a turd sandwich", and whatever you choose doesn't even matter because they won't keep their promises, but, hey, at least everyone knows their promises. This one is blue, that one is red, both will let you down in the end, but you kinda know what their general vibe is. Voting for MEPs on the other hand — they are all kinda grey and I couldn't tell you how'd they vote on this particular issue. Depends on your country, but in my case many of them simply weren't MEPs on 2023 vote. And I'm kinda surprised by some of the choices.
Second, I don't really feel that MEPs are that important. They impact almost nothing. All real work is done behind the closed doors by some unknown people, and half of them all happen to be Maltese for some reason (0.1% of EU population, by the way). Parliament in the majority of cases just votes "for all good things and against all bad things" and the actual things that will come to haunt us are usually some small details in the Appendix that were never even explicitly put on the vote.
And when MEP's vote does matter, well, we get something like in this case. The majority objected, but that doesn't matter.
By the way, a couple of years ago I was asking myself, how could it be that we choose von der Leyen to be the President of EC? Well, I don't think we ever did. I surely didn't. MEPs barely did. Never once in all of the history EP rejected a candidate proposed by Council. Whatever each member of the Council did we'll never know, this is not disclosed. And to add the cherry on top, in this particular case it was a record number of MEPs who actually voted against her. It doesn't matter. Here we all are.
Seriously, the only reason why it takes place IMO is just that nobody ever cares to think for a moment how decisions are made in the EU, so everyone is somewhat indifferent and there's no mass attention to the fact, that the general public ability to affect EU decision is near zero, far, far less than USA or Russia and probably even China.
Anyway, doesn't matter, it was totally my mistake, everything works for me as well as for everyone else.
But I'd like to propose allowing keyboard input. Losing because of your mouse skills in a pattern recognition game is annoying.
What's even the point of this landing page in this state?
I mean, really, if we keep in mind that formally these are 2 totally unrelated projects, it's hard to complain. Yes, it's almost seamless. But since when installing Podman everyone thinks roughly "I am installing a newer better Docker version", and we all already have a few dozens of custom Docker containers running, it's hard no to wish it was even more seamless and backwards-compatible. I remember the transition process wasn't nearly as smooth as I hoped, and every small glitch is kinda stressful, because you know that currently all of it "somehow works", and if something breaks you probably won't even notice right away.
Python walrus operator wasn't opposed by "teachers and beginners", because it's "harder to learn". Quite the opposite, it was opposed by purist old-timers, because for 20 years the absence of stuff like that was considered a feature and "the Python way". I don't think I pass as a beginner, but while I personally am not opposed to that operator, I totally get what's their problem with it. I think, that := is explicit enough, but addition-assignment was a native feature of most C-like languages which usage was actively discouraged by most teams, at least unless it really makes the concrete situation much more readable. Which the example in the post hardly does.
Rust ? operator isn't some example of terse Perl-like syntax, it's very intuitive and by no way it's any harder to grasp for a beginner, than the explicit match. In fact, it's probably the opposite, since it really matches the surface behavior. It only appeared after the explicit syntax, because it's really just syntactic sugar in Rust's case, and the language primitives are Ok/Err and pattern matching, not the "?" operator.
And I don't even know TLA+, but I could guess what "Good" example does, because it's basically plain English / standard math notation. The explicit "procedural" version is much less clear (mostly, because of the unfamiliar syntax).
1. Customer acquisition.
2. Cheap(er) electricity/hardware.
So it's really surprising to me that them making their own chip surprises anyone at all. The electricity thing is already kinda being taken care of by earlier strategic alliances with some other evil people, the chip is a natural next step.
To be fair to Jurassic Park, though, at least in the book the quirks of T-Rex's vision were explained by the details of genetic engineering (the base DNA used was some kind of amphibian, that allegedly had this problem — still not very scientifically plausible, but not quite as silly as in the movie). It goes a long way to emphasize that in the end these are not real dinosaurs, these are human-made abominations.
Sorry, but this is just pure "Gell-Mann amnesia effect" vibe to me. I mean, you've just brought up a perfect example yourself! What kind of mental gymnastics does it take to still hope that this time it's not like that?
I don't wanna start the whole "vaccines cause autism" thing and whatnot, and surely you shouldn't avoid ultrasound just because of irrational fear of some yet undiscovered side-effects, but it's really amazing, how people tell fun stories about how common was the narrative about major war being very unlikely in "modern days" (because who would dare to do that with this kind of technology!) right before WW1, and then conclude with firmly believing that these days (after WW2) it sure won't happen, because humans are not that dumb. And my point is, that perhaps it indeed might have been a bit less likely, if people didn't believe that it is so unlikely to keep stepping on the same rake.
In your original post you were kinda hand-wavy about what we have except for x # y := 1/(x-y), but your examples make it clear you also assume 0 exists. Then it's pretty obvious how to get: identity function, reciprocity, negation, substraction & addition. But I effectively couldn't get anywhere past that. In fact, I got myself convinced that it's provably impossible to define (e.g.) multiplication as a tree of compositions of # and 0.
So here's my interpretation of what you actually meant:
1. I suppose, you assumed we already have ℕ and can sample anything from it. Meaning, you don't need to define 5, you just assume it's there. Well, to level things out, (#, 0, 1) are enough to recover ℤ, so I assume you assumed at least these three. Is that right?
2. Then, I suppose you assumed that since we have addition, multiplication simply follows from here. I mean at this point we clearly have f(x) = 3x, or 4x, or 5x, … so you decided that the multiplication is solved. Because I couldn't find how to express f(x, y) = x⋅y, and as far, as I can tell, it's actually impossible. If I'm wrong, please show me x⋅y defined as a sequence of compositions of (#, 0, 1).
3. This way (assuming №2) we get (ℚ, +, -, ⋅, /). Then, I suppose, you assume we can just define exp(x) as its Taylor series, so we also have all roots, trig functions, etc., and then we obviously have all numbers from ℝ, that are values of such functions acting on ℚ. Exactly as we do in any calculus / real analysis book, with limits and all that jazz.
If that's what you actually meant, I'm afraid you completely missed the point, and 1/(x-y) in fact isn't nearly as good as eml for the purposes of Odrzywołek's paper. Now, I didn't actually verify his results, so I just take them for granted (they are totally believable though, since it's easy to se how), but what he claims is that we can use eml essentially as a gate, like Sheffer stroke in logic, and express "everything else" just as a sequence of such gates and constant 1 (and "everything else" here is what I listed in №3). No words, limits, sets and other familiar mathematical formalism, just one operation and one constant, and "induction" is only used to get all of ℕ, everything else is defined as a finite tree of (eml, 1).
I am not claiming this is better than 1/(x-y) in any way (I have no idea, maybe it isn't if you look closely enough), but you are simply arguing against the wrong thing. Author didn't claim eml to be computationally efficient (it even feels weird to say that, since computational efficiency is not a trait of a mathematical function, but of a computer architecture implementing some program) or anything else, only that (eml, 1) are enough to produce every number and function that (admittedly, somewhat vaguely defined) a scientific calculator can produce.
However, I want to point out that it's weird 1/(x-y) didn't appear on that graph in Figure 1, since if it's as powerful as eml, it should have all the same connections as eml, and it's a pity Odrzywołek's paper misses it.
That's awesome. I always wondered if there is some way to do this.
I mean, seriously, if whatever they posted on Twitter actually helped anyone (I'd be surprised, but what do I know), then obviously they'd want to deliver it through every channel available to as many people as they can. If not, and they just want to show their protest by quitting — well, at least they could have tried to get themselves banned on Twitter and whine about it later everywhere else. But this — it's just pathetic.