|
divabot posted:Here, for your delight, is Peak Rationalist Tumblr Discourse: ...and furthermore, why do people unquestioningly believe that "goodness" holds any positive/worthwhile qualities? Isn't it time for a critical reappraisal of the very idea of "badness"?
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 12:22 |
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:...and furthermore, why do people unquestioningly believe that "goodness" holds any positive/worthwhile qualities? Isn't it time for a critical reappraisal of the very idea of "badness"? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Wesley you're outside of the facility, there's nothing guiding your steps anymore, you're just saying words that correspond to nothing anyone else understands, come back Wesley
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
I still don't get the picture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Annointed posted:I still don't get the picture. It's all pretty clear
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:Wesley you're outside of the facility, there's nothing guiding your steps anymore, you're just saying words that correspond to nothing anyone else understands, come back Wesley This is actually about Phil Sandifer's book, which is the toast of the rationalsphere since Yudkowsky's post on the subject. Phil answers Wesley here. Note also in that Twitter thread Wesley going into a detailed critique of a book he has literally not read. (I am one of five people who has, and can assure you that literally everything Wesley is saying about it is not-even-wrong.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
divabot posted:This is actually about Phil Sandifer's book, which is the toast of the rationalsphere since Yudkowsky's post on the subject. Phil answers Wesley here. Note also in that Twitter thread Wesley going into a detailed critique of a book he has literally not read. (I am one of five people who has, and can assure you that literally everything Wesley is saying about it is not-even-wrong.) I'm more talking about whatever the gently caress "atheistic immaterialism" is
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:It's all pretty clear Still don't get it. Other than old man being edgy and insulting kid but I don't get it beyond that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Annointed posted:Still don't get it. Other than old man being edgy and insulting kid but I don't get it beyond that. It's a version of a tweet by dril, who does a load of 140-character sendup of a certain kind of self-important, faux-profound Internet moron. Here, he's parodying some of the dumber moral-relativist posts you see floating around the tubes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:It's a version of a tweet by dril, who does a load of 140-character sendup of a certain kind of self-important, faux-profound Internet moron. Here, he's parodying some of the dumber moral-relativist posts you see floating around the tubes. More specifically it's a tweet by dril set to panels from inspirational poster factory Zen Pencils http://zenpencils.com/comic/94-the-two-wolves/
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:I'm more talking about whatever the gently caress "atheistic immaterialism" is there's a guy named karl who wrote a book called the german ideology that thoroughly critiques exactly the
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
divabot posted:Here, for your delight, is Peak Rationalist Tumblr Discourse: Were we to exclude people for having ideas outside the mainstream, far worse than so-called "fascists," we would have become the people who picked on me in high school for liking anime and computers. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
 
The Time Dissolver has a new favorite as of 03:31 on Apr 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
:jfc: The mental loops they start tying themselves into to reject entire fields of study.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
 I'm the diamond. (immutability and functional purity are real things lambda-centric programmers care about)
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
It's fine, we should be able to wrap the conference in a monad and take care of all that mess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Completely off topic but have you heard about that experimental treatment using TMS that's allowed at least one guy to sense emotions for the first time? I can sense emotions just fine, though. It requires me to be paying attention and to connect what I'm percieving in the other person's behaviors with what I know from my own experience of those emotions and study, but it's still sensing them. To be honest, I'm not sure I'd like to suddenly experience that stuff directly, autism isn't my only issue and I'm willing to bet being able to feel that stuff head-on is more intense than my dangerously jury-rigged brain could handle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
ikanreed posted::jfc: I don't even understand what they said.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
Asymmetrikon posted:It's fine, we should be able to wrap the conference in a monad and take care of all that mess. Why did the ancap programmer focus on pure functional languages? He didn't want to maintain the State, ha-chachachachaa
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Why did the ancap programmer focus on pure functional languages? He didn't want to maintain the State, ha-chachachachaa He was also an advocate of the Free Market.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
Does that parse to "there is a lot of social psychology which appears to endorse mind-body dualism, therefore social psychology is bullshit", or am I just really confused?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:(immutability and functional purity are real things lambda-centric programmers care about) accepting that having Moldbug around for your conference isn't best for your conference would be too much of a state change in the lambdaconf guy's free speech and inclusivity functions
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 08:05
|
|
|
McGlockenshire posted:Problem 2: A talk was reviewed and approved that ended up being from an author that has made numerous statements that make members of certain groups hesitant to associate with the author. The talk is topical and compelling enough to include in the conference. I can just about guarantee you it's not. I am confident in this despite not having read a precis, or even the title of the talk.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 10:52
|
|
|
Of course, increment is built into Nock. So, ha, that's easy. How do we decrement? A good way to start is to gaze fondly on how we'd do it if we actually had a real language, ie, Hoon. Here is a minimal decrement in Hoon: code:Or for fun, on one line: code:Does Hoon actually work? code:Let's translate this into English. How do we decrement the subject? First (line 1), we rename the subject a. Second (line 2), we add a variable, b, an atom with value 0. Third (line 3), we loop. Fourth, we test if a equals b plus 1 (line 4), produce b if it does (line 5), repeat the loop with b set to b plus 1 (line 6) if it doesn't. Obviously, while the syntax is unusual, the algorithm is anything but deep. We are calculating a minus one by counting up from 0. (Obviously, this is an O(n) algorithm. Is there a better way? There is not. Do we actually do this in practice? Yes and no.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
Assembly looks more practical than that gibberish.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
ikanreed posted::jfc: My friends think studying sociology is dumb 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:My friends think studying sociology is dumb 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Assembly looks more practical than that gibberish. Assembly is practical. It is a minimal 1-to-1 mapping of what the machine really does to some word-like things to help you see what's going on. Hoon is an un-thought. The antithesis of consideration.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Abjad Soup posted:Let's translate this into English. How do we decrement the subject? First (line 1), we rename the subject a. Second (line 2), we add a variable, b, an atom with value 0. Third (line 3), we loop. Fourth, we test if a equals b plus 1 (line 4), produce b if it does (line 5), repeat the loop with b set to b plus 1 (line 6) if it doesn't. Obviously, while the syntax is unusual, the algorithm is anything but deep. We are calculating a minus one by counting up from 0. Is this some unironic implementation of Church numerals or what?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
quote:Obviously, this is an O(n) algorithm. Is there a better way? There is not. Am I missing some hidden array thing or is this seriously claiming something that a processor can do in one instruction cycle needs a loop and is O(n) somehow?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Assembly looks more practical than that gibberish. Assembly is very practical surprisingly. When doing embedded systems programming Assembly is often used for speed and memory usage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
Hate Fibration posted:Assembly is very practical surprisingly. When doing embedded systems programming Assembly is often used for speed and memory usage. Back when my dad (an electrical engineer from back when electrical engineering meant building poo poo out of at most VLSI chips and generally discrete components) first started getting into PIC controllers for personal projects he went with assembly because "that compiler business looks too complicated" 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Am I missing some hidden array thing or is this seriously claiming something that a processor can do in one instruction cycle needs a loop and is O(n) somehow? Abjad Soup is saying that there is no better way in Hoon, not that no better way exists ever. Also, won't this loop forever if the number to be decremented is <= 0?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
ToxicFrog posted:Abjad Soup is saying that there is no better way in Hoon, not that no better way exists ever. I think Hoon has integer overflow, so no, just a very very long time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
ToxicFrog posted:Abjad Soup is saying that there is no better way in Hoon, not that no better way exists ever. That's what I thought he was saying, but it seemed far too stupid to be true so I figured I must have been reading something wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
I wasn't saying jack poo poo myself, I just googled for "example nock hoon program", went to the first result (which is Yarvin's tutorial/guidebook!), and then grabbed the first piece that wasn't the obscurassembly BS. Besides the "my bespoke gibberish is incapable of decrementing a variable in less than linear time" bit, my favorite part is in the second paragraph: "Like JVM bytecode, Nock is as inscrutable as assembly language. In fact, you can think of it as a sort of "functional assembly language." There are sometimes reasons to program in real assembly language. There is never a reason to program in Nock. Except to learn Nock." This all was why I was first linked to this thread, quite a while back, when people were marveling at the majesty of Curtis Yarvin's masterwork here. Back on like page 2 or 3. If you've missed out or have just forgotten since then, enjoy the trip down Functional Assembly Language lane!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Am I missing some hidden array thing or is this seriously claiming something that a processor can do in one instruction cycle needs a loop and is O(n) somehow? Apparently the interpreter for this crazy language has a feature that can detect stuff like the overcomplicated decrement and replace it with the single cpu instruction. I've heard that urbit is horribly slow though, so I doubt it works particularly well. It's almost as if the whole thing is was written by a crazy obscurantist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
I've been trying to explain to people that Urbit is the Time Cube of computer science. This should hammer the point home.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
divabot posted:I've been trying to explain to people that Urbit is the Time Cube of computer science. This should hammer the point home. Time Cube is a fun foray into the mind of a schizo
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 12:22 |
|
|
TempleOS is the Time Cube of programming; Urbit is the Atlas Shrugged.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 23:59
|
|