You're also not using money to circumvent the normal process we use to proliferate good ideas. If something is good, tell your friends about it. Notably this is exponential and very weak initially, hence the need for legitimate advertising. You may need to circumvent this process to jump start a non-manipulative idea but never to sustain it. Modern advertisers can't pretend to think I am legitimately ignorant to the existence of carbonated sugar water. They're obviously sustaining an otherwise unwanted behavior in the public via manipulation. Theres no protection of free speech when theres a concentration of megaphones "shouting down" (via the most possibly advanced techniques in psychological manipulation) anything but one particular idea.
What I want is for someone, somewhere to consciously evaluate my deodorant purchase. At least in some way that doesn't completely disrespect what anyone would want given they had the capacity to consciously evaluate their deodorant purchase. I understand that that is what advertising is supposed to be.
Wow. You're basically just describing the mechanism by which you're manipulating people's behavior, very apparently without concern for your redistribution of inherently finite resources. The opposition to modern advertising is in response to exactly this. It's not that much different than cigarettes. You're exploiting subconscious human mechanisms utterly without concern for any effect except number of purchases. People are better off when they can consciously think about what they're doing. There are people who are motivated to promote that in their societies.
You can couple material with complexity such that everything can apparently be material. However if we limit our notion of "material" to what we observe in our universe then we can easily do the same with conceivable forms of non-material. We can even simulate them in our entirely material world using the universal correspondence of the turing machine. The "everything is material" explanation is a degraded form of the "everything is complexity" explanation. I suspect most formulations of an intelligent entity or an "idea" would be non-materially formulated but materially represented in this same way. If you assume materialism is the explanation for everything then yes all known instances of the materialism idea are incidentally materialistic.
I was honestly trying to be facetious before. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. Text sucks. I actually think it was really inappropriate that you were down-voted. The notion that you should have to produce material definitions for concepts presented as fundamentally non-material is tautologically absurd. It's basically a rude way of suggesting that you shouldn't present that view here. I think, absent some success by materialists, presenting non-material notions of an apparent thing is utterly acceptable. Not only that yours was on topic and directly in response to a comment you apparently read and attempted to respond to earnestly.
We materialists want a material definition for this thing you call non-material. What is it. Define it so we can analyze it with our material-limited instrument, empiricism. Otherwise we're forced to conclude that it does not "exist" (is material) and downvote you for being so stupid.
The necessity of the human practice of software development doesn't end until the onset of general artificial intelligence. In the time between then and now it will increasingly be the hammer that is used for humanity's nails.
I want a web where we just draw on a big canvas. That's a pretty simple API for implementers to get right. Then we could move the scene graph (DOM) and it's rendering engine entirely into the application language where it could be more readily hot-fixed. It'd be like PDFJS but for your whole fucking web browser.
The investment could produce a net gain, even in the immediate, and there would still be a problem. Leaking value into the competitive environment in which you're trying to survive will kill you. As alluded to by the GP, training as compensation produces employees that are worth more to competitors. Once trained, an employee experiences a loss in pay equal to the cost of their training. This Effectively subsidizes their departure.
It was intended for low latency services that mostly wait on I/O. These services don't compute enough to need parallelism. Especially when you can just fork another process or FFI to a C library with proper threading if you need it. It is necessary that they be concurrent but parallelism introduces a LOT of complexity beyond that.
Node is largely a reaction to advances in event multiplexing like kqueue and epoll. It was intended to be a scripting language bolted on top of a single-threaded concurrency model. This design-decision corresponds to the before unseen degree of callback hell that is Node's primary pain point.
This has been my experience. To the extant that I'm trying to embed Javascript everywhere now. Many server-side operations are deterministic and only need to be executed on the server because it's a trusted environment. They can be executed "optimistically" on the client if you have the same information and a compatible runtime. It makes everything feel snappier and enables a practical programming model. A single state transition function for each "action" performs the immediate client update and triggers validated server persistence in parallel. Without a ubiquitous execution environment that's like four/five times as hard.
IMHO this is what distinguishes exceptional software engineers. They're not just trying to get a job, do well in their classes or otherwise satisfy external ideals. They just want to experience their own excellence as an end in itself. In the job market pretension is extremely effective. You can likely make a better living by optimizing appearances and neglecting actuality. If you're not able to evaluate a person's abilities you desperately need an independent third party. Notably, this doesn't imply that it's an effective pedagogical practice.
A person simply intent on becoming more than yesterday has no one to fool. Their capacity for self-evaluation is preserved. They can enter into an autodidactic loop that isn't utterly bound on I/O. I suspect this is much more effective than traditional education, albeit much less convergent and measurable.
You had me at defense contractors. Successful or not it wouldn't create a net benefit for humanity or even the subset of it our government is ostensibly serving.
I suspect it's just accessing NaN[0]. Either form of property access ([] or .) implied coercion to object (not iterable) in ES5. It makes sense that destructuring would build on that behavior.
Exactly. This is a great description and may end up being the state of things forever. A precise definition likely requires that the thing being defined is significantly less complicated than the thing defining it. I suspect a proper physics definition of consciousness would necessitate singularity-quality general AI. But then you'd be unable to define the distinction between those consciousnesses and the more advanced one that was defining them.
Agreed. When I said "maintenance" I was referring to the continuous post hoc work needed to uphold the original functionality as it encounters the full range of it's potential input.
This is likely true today but it's increasingly false. Massive efforts are already underway to develop tooling and methodology for this purpose. Once completed the applications developed with them will be significantly easier to produce. Also, since they're provably correct the "maintenance" metaphor is no longer applicable. What we need is provably correct code generation for the output of theorem provers like Coq. These tools generate a large portion of the proof automatically. Programs can be inferred directly from proofs using the Curry-Howard Correspondence. Interesting discussion here: http://www.mail-archive.com/sc-l@securecoding.org/msg01278.h...
Society is continually expanding it's notion of minimum acceptability. Standardized testing is a great example. The problem with this approach is that extreme excellence is fundamentally divergent. Revolutionarily smart people don't think the same way but faster. They think differently [1]. Also, excellence in one domain precludes it in others. For instance, you can't be a world class distance-runner and body-builder at the same time. The same holds for mental activities. Effective heuristics in one domain become cognitive biases in another. By expecting and accepting lower performance in general you create room for your comparative advantages to further develop. This can be summarized by the maxim: focus on your strengths. In this case I suspect insurmountable weakness enabled Nash to do exactly that.
1: or "different" if you're too focused to bother with grammar ;)
I think that sort of excellence is born from resignation to "brokenness". Many many people waste their potential trying to fix the things they think they're missing.
Often it's simply dependent on when you were hired. Employers have to stay competitive but won't give you a raise if you don't express discontent. When wages trend upward new hires can often end up making more money.
False inherencies are the staple of those that wish to understand the world such that they might exploit it. If they weren't prepared to demonstrate that the pursuit of a solution was necessarily a fool's game then they'd have to give an actual shit.
They were developed with significantly less effort than applications from the 90s. Many are just experiments someone published after mere hours of work. A large number of people exist who would trade performance for more content. That's not broken it's just a difference in preference. There are high performance webapps you can use, albeit fewer of them. That and higher performance apps if you don't mind waiting to download and install.
I'd love to have the dynamism of the web and the performance of native all on one platform. We're not there yet.
Because fuck media conglomerates, that's why. Sorta like Google Chrome: because fuck Microsoft, that's why. When an entity achieves dominance they only innovate in order to keep it. The difference between this situation and the one I compared it to is that there's no way to legitimately compete. Even in the contrasting example it took an entity the size of Google to revive competition. In this one they control the content and dictate the platform. The most competitive platforms, in terms of user preference, can be starved of content and displaced by alternatives only the media conglomerates could desire. Do you honestly think we'd have gotten Netflix without torrents? The people who desire progress or otherwise to actually do things have two choices. They can either repress that desire or they can out-hack the regressive empire builders who desire only to have things.
Amen. It's like people think the existence of a facade undermines the merit of the underlying architecture. There is no "moving too fast". If you're looking for a curated set of panacea tech then get off the frontier and wait for it to be a class. The people designing what will eventually be its content need a place to iterate. If you're butthurt about the web dominating app distribution you can use emscripten and canvas or circumvent the web entirely and use steam. The highest level interfaces of the web aren't trying to be everything for everyone. They're just standardized solutions to common problems. Look at how lodash improved performance relative to native browser methods by implementing only a useful subset of their behavior. It's not all or nothing.
> we really should be limiting those restrictions to the smallest number possible.
Agreed. I was only trying to produce a notion of speech that we can safely declare inviolable. There may be a gray area between that which is certainly black or white. Having those boundaries lets us explore it while mitigating the slippery slope.