214 karma · joined December 31, 2012
> In economics, the lump of labour fallacy is the misconception that there is a fixed amount of work—a lump of labour—to be done within an economy which can be distributed to create more or fewer jobs.
- Erlang-style concurrency (which I haven't tried so don't understand but hear good things about always)
- With "platform" level capability security...
- ... and language-level capability security
- But with a sound and expressive type system like F# or similar
- Oh, and garbage collection
On the other hand, there are other people who might apply a different heuristic and guess that a project named 'lunatic' is less likely to attract the sort of people who might take, for example, a code of conduct as a tool to beat other contributors about the head. (I'm not saying that's you!)
I guess there are "swings and roundabouts" and peoples' rules of thumb differ, which is perhaps diversity that's all to the good.
Godspeed to work/people like agoric.com and seL4.
It was, though.
Words never have entirely cleanly defined meanings, but broadly I think bigotry is often used to speak specifically of all-out irrational dogmatic beliefs. Prejudice is more often used where there is some partly rational judgement about a group of people, together with moral problems caused by applying that logic to a particular person. Of course, often our prejudices are very fallible: "rational" prejudices turn out to be wrong, and in that sense are functionally equivalent to bigotry. But holding a "rational" belief that all prejudice is irrational also does not make us infallible!
Some prejudice seems hard to criticize morally: for example, everybody makes prejudiced judgements say based partly on clothing, age, and sex if they find themselves in close proximity to a group of young men in a city at night. On the other hand, at work, one tries hard to not judge based on whatever preconceived group notions one has -- I think almost everybody thinks that's a good thing (which as you say can be harmed by identity-based hiring). I don't have a good abstract explanation of what makes the difference between "good" and "bad" prejudice, and I wish I did, so would love to hear of good writing about it if somebody can recommend some!
In the company I worked for recently, perhaps even a majority of the more capable programmers around me happened to be women. But wherever we do start hiring based on identity, it's hard to see how prejudice can be avoided, even if bigotry were entirely absent.
> fast.ai
> Do that and your life will change
Sounds like Emad Mostaque of Stability AI / stable diffusion thinks this course probably won't fall into "do this, no understanding needed" trap (I'm not contradicting anything you said here).
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/01/30/the-aclu-reverses-...
What other organisations do you donate to along the same lines?
Did much of the progress in the past that led us to today's democratic institutions involve law-breaking, strictly interpreted, of the law of the day? Would too-effective, too-cheap enforcement have prevented that progress? I know little about history, but I suspect so.
Linux emphasized because you think
- such Linux malware as there is commonly goes undetected
- there is a lot of Linux malware in some sense
- it's easy to create Linux malware that will not be detected
- something else?
There's an odd mindset around this sort of thing in some internet circles, in which for example a book that contains a fictional evil person is assumed to be the same thing as an evil book, almost by definition. Isn't that part of what people are reacting to when they are outraged when this sort of arrest happens?
For "enterprise software", I imagine a future of domain experts training/instructing AI minions to do things like process sale orders and returns - like the office clerks of the past, but silicon clerks. And if that, why not consumer apps etc. too?
The next "everything is bloated electron apps" is "everything is bloated AI models" ?-)
The post I replied to said "could never be tracked". People using cash can be tracked if it's important to do so. Mass surveillance on cash transactions is trickier (though maybe with machine learning we'll decide that it's a great idea to track physical transactions of any kind using video etc.).
Though it was a nice enthusiast-level telescope, I think it was just seeing the rings that did it. So I reckon a cheaper one would have had the same effect.
I don't know if you see a real readability issue or not, but I do think it's easy to jump to "hard to read" when that's only true in a certain parochial sense: it's not what we're used to.
1. Error: This expression has type ('x -> Result_set.t) list but an expression was expected of type Result_set.t list
2. where 'x = (locl_ty * Tast.pos * ('ex, 'fb, 'en) Aast.expr_) list
The solution suggested by the parent of your post sounds desirable also, but perhaps the currying semantics of Ocaml makes that difficult or poorly-defined?
That seems like it might be the best of both worlds in some ways: laws can be enforced when it's genuinely important to do so (the record is there so presumably if you seize people's keys you can verify transactions), but not so cheaply as to entail practical mass surveillance and tyranny. In principle presumably a possible weakness is later large-scale decryption if the encryption gets broken -- but that's arguably much less useful to the would-be tyrants and surveillers.
> The problem isn't that "finding nothing" isn't progress. The problem is that "finding nothing" is terrible progress-per-dollar.
> if you go on to argue about how vital it is to spend another 5x times as much money to build another particle collider that we have no reason to believe will find anything new, you will continue to be marginalized and find your influence waning to apparently no effect.
The first part is fine if by it you mean you think the physics-practitioner-theory of the collider advocates (a theory about what next research steps might be fruitful, not a theory of physics) is now implausible to you. On the other hand if you just think something like "We expect the future (of physics) to be 'like' the past (not making progress)", then that isn't an explanatory statement and is unrelated to whether we should fund a future collider. If you know what you're going to find in an experiment, you're not setting out to discover something new, so there is no such "future will be like the past" principle here.
The second really is an argument not to fund a future collider because it comes with an explanation: what good theory (of physics, this time) do we have that predicts we'll find new tests, or new problems? If there's no very good theory, new tests or new problems might come from other experiments instead, especially if they're a lot cheaper so we can do more of them. Personally I guess that it's a good argument you make here in this second part, but what do I know?
I too dread a little all the mischief that's going to happen while the world learns about this. But people don't have to uncritically believe "the evidence of their own eyes", even though that has been very useful corrective to many mistakes, and will I guess be less so now. Evidence doesn't work that way: people always have to interpret everything in terms of their understanding of the world, and they can get better at that in response to changes like this.