Somehow, your comment has convinced me to just learn native development. Cross-platform work feels like an absolute slog, with or without portable code. I guess I’ll find out which one is less tolerable.
1,514 karma · joined October 14, 2011
https://github.com/Protektor-Desura/Archon/wiki/Compare-Medi...
It’s a lot of work, but Plex looks beautiful and helps me stay disciplined about what I’m watching, like a sacred space on my TV and phone. I download YouTube videos, movies, and TV shows and organize them on Plex, so I don’t have to hold my breath through ads and suggestions to watch them.
[1]: http://plex.tv
> Most software at Google gets rewritten every few years.
> This may seem incredibly costly. Indeed, it does consume a large fraction of Google’s resources. However, it also has some crucial benefits that are key to Google’s agility and long-term success. In a period of a few years, it is typical for the requirements for a product to change significantly, as the software environment and other technology around it change, and as changes in technology or in the marketplace affect user needs, desires, and expectations. Software that is a few years old was designed around an older set of requirements and is typically not designed in a way that is optimal for current requirements. Furthermore, it has typically accumulated a lot of complexity. Rewriting code cuts away all the unnecessary accumulated complexity that was addressing requirements which are no longer so important. In addition, rewriting code is a way of transferring knowledge and a sense of ownership to newer team members. This sense of ownership is crucial for productivity: engineers naturally put more effort into developing features and fixing problems in code that they feel is “theirs”. Frequent rewrites also encourage mobility of engineers between different projects which helps to encourage cross-pollination of ideas. Frequent rewrites also help to ensure that code is written using modern technology and methodology.
I asked the author Simon if these produced accurate 3D coordinates for the planets, and he showed me how to verify it. So somehow, planets moving at constant angular speed along perfect circles are able to produce the same trajectories—but the model claims to go further to explain parallaxes for which the heliocentric model has no answer.
Color me interested. I hope enough astronomers look at it!
> “I think political systems will use it to terrorize people,” Hinton said. Already, he believed, agencies like the N.S.A. were attempting to abuse similar technology.
> “Then why are you doing the research?” Bostrom asked.
> “I could give you the usual arguments,” Hinton said. “But the truth is that the prospect of discovery is too sweet.” He smiled awkwardly, the word hanging in the air—an echo of Oppenheimer, who famously said of the bomb, “When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it, and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success.”
*firmament
I don’t think “to make something conscious” means to make it clear, but rather to personify it:
* “Hate the sin, love the sinner”
* “Don’t hate the player, hate the game”
* “People don’t have ideas, ideas have people”
* “Memes should be considered as living structures, not just metaphorically”
> In some sense, I believed in the devil before I believed in God.
To unpack that a bit, he said suffering is the most real thing there is, and was obsessed with understanding how the unprecedented evil of the 20th century happened. That led him to reason that if evil like that can exist, its opposite might also exist, and has been finding his way to God ever since.
I thought a lot about why that needs to happen. He describes it as an operation that is “adding or subtracting white”. Geometrically, you’re just moving the color closer or further from the white corner of the RGB cube. So I wonder if that maps close enough to moving up-and-down in the CIELAB/UV color spaces, where the Y-axis represents luminance.
[1] https://medium.com/@erikdkennedy/color-in-ui-design-a-practi...
> I think there is a certain 'magic' in not understanding certain concepts fully.
With magic everywhere I wonder how many lifetimes it would take to understand the things we use. And I wonder how much of our knowledge is, should, or must remain tacit[1].
And sometimes “surface explanations” kick off deep understandings that you can’t surface at once, or ever. Jordan Peterson tried rationalizing faith in this way, and it was quite a show[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_knowledge
[2] https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL22J3VaeABQD_IZs7y60I3lUr...
[1] https://github.com/philogb/page/tree/gh-pages/myriahedral
We build stuff out of trees, so I think he straight-up killed that tree to build a parable out of doing it. It was in his sovereignty to uproot what isn’t Good. In the very next paragraph, he does the same by throwing the merchants out of the temple.
His response to his apostles after they mention the dead tree is interesting. It seems like he ignores them to explain that if they pray about anything, it will happen if they believe it. I think this has something to do with 1) the role of faith in avoiding the tree’s fate so that they may be bear the fruit no matter how impossible it seems since it was “not the season for bearing fruit”, or 2) a picture of the reality of the Kingdom after the harvest, where the Good will have reign to move mountains.
Proofs blossom like trees from epistemic axioms. It’s confounding to believe “Christ is perfect”, but it does bear fruit, however confounding it is. Theology isn’t popularly known, but it’s there if you’re curious.