|
sssh, adults are talking
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:33 |
|
|
Brain Candy posted:sssh, adults are talking wish you were one of them
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
science is the mind killer
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
my cousin tried science once, i haven't heard from him in years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Brain Candy posted:otoh, the idea that science is the only way to know things is a mind poison more like "nerds who venerate the authority of SCIENCE while failing to understand the scientific method, experimental methodology or anything else that actually makes rigorous studies useful" are poison
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
get this hot take: formal proofs work without invoking Bayesian reasoning and are a way of knowing things without the scientific method
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
formal proof requires sound axioms and rules of inference, and I have no idea how one expects to produce those to decide whether we should use tabs or spaces then again, formal proof vs experimentation is just static typing vs unit tests writ large
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Asymmetrikon posted:formal proof requires sound axioms and rules of inference, and I have no idea how one expects to produce those to decide whether we should use tabs or spaces i know, it's super easy. USE BOTH
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Brain Candy posted:i know, it's super easy. USE BOTH i'm glad we reached the correct answer
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
it is totally reasonable to accept the limitations of formal scientific study any given study is going to be necessarily limited in scope, and often it will have flaws even within that scope. those caveats do not magically disappear when you aggregate studies, and it is important to understand them when discussing results. we should not be hasty to dismiss apparently-less-rigorous inputs such as lived experiences just because they conflict with the results of a study, especially when the differences seem to match the weaknesses of the study furthermore, most topics involving human behavior are inherently difficult to study with any rigor. in this instance, what we really want to know is how the choice of programming language affects the development of a project, and specifically to projects like our own. there are a ton of dimensions of that similarity: how long will the current project last, will the code be used in future projects, how many people have worked on this code in the past, are those people still around, how many people are working on it now, how experienced is the current team, are they focused exclusively on this project, how much turnover is there, how well does the team communicate, how stable is their understanding of what the project needs to do, etc. nobody is ever going to run a 2-year study where teams of professional programmers use different programming languages to create and maintain competing products with the same initial spec and changing requirements, and it wouldn't mean much if they did, because there would be so much else going on that the noise would drown out any supposed differences, and anyway people would totally fairly spend years complaining about the setup but usually when people say poo poo like that it's because they've got some specific nonsense idea that they don't want to give up
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
rjmccall posted:but usually when people say poo poo like that it's because they've got some specific nonsense idea that they don't want to give up
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
like there is serious limits to what science can tell us. theres also real questions as what counts as knowledge and the difference between what we learn from science and what we learn from proofs and whatnot. 99.99999% of people who complain about science not knowing everything or being able to tell us everything have some pet nonsense they think they specially know
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:99.99999% of people who complain about science not knowing everything or being able to tell us everything have some pet nonsense they think they specially know usually it's about ghosts or ufos, though, and not about computer touching
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Asymmetrikon posted:usually it's about ghosts or ufos, though, and not about computer touching that's not been my experience i mean look at how many people are super confident about static/dynamic typing they seem to have very little rigorous objective evidence about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:that's not been my experience it was a bad joke about ridiculous anti-science stuff, sorry in my experience i run into way more people who use single studies as conclusive proof of their preference's objective superiority ("the benchmark says library x is faster than y, so why would you ever use library y?") than people who just totally reject the concept of being able to test assertions. totally might just be a bubble i'm in, though
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
oh I see that a lot more too
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
rjmccall posted:it is totally reasonable to accept the limitations of formal scientific study more broadly the philosophy of science, and many other philosophical fields, have gotten a very bad deal in the last century. the breakthroughs in the natural sciences that ushered in this era has set up systems and worldviews which give very little time for such more fundamental, and hard to judge, areas. instead there has been a long period of great progress through small incremental discoveries, but it is hugely unclear whether the framework that has set up is even working well anymore all very interesting to ponder at any rate
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:like there is serious limits to what science can tell us. theres also real questions as what counts as knowledge and the difference between what we learn from science and what we learn from proofs and whatnot. you put a number in there what's your sample size, friend?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Shinku ABOOKEN posted:
eda (electronic design automation) tools are shoggothic monstrosities from alien dimensions, byzantine software implementing poo poo languages which were inflicted upon the world by an unholy combination of accident and committee. licenses for these tools can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per seat per year. despite the expense, bugs and jankiness are common because one of the ways you wring bugs out of complex software is sheer scale -- the more users you have the faster they hit edge cases and report them to you. this is a niche market with a very limited user base so bugs are distressingly common. also note that the task described in that contest included the hardware equivalent of optimizing the output of your c compiler by looking at the assembly it emits, because that's just what you do. that's what the "logic family manuals" refers to: documents analagous to a super detailed cpu manual complete with detailed timing information for every instruction, except the 'instructions' are far more primitive and the number of variations on a theme can be immense. page after page of slightly different AND gates, each optimized for different tradeoffs between propagation delay, leakage current, and output drive strength. this isn't like a cpu where basically all you need is one integer add instruction so, yes
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
quote:
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
ive posted at least one or two rants about how loving garbage the fpga ecosystems are and i assure you every single one is putting it mildly
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
i love not working with hardware design any more but still sitting near hardware designers. they spend probably half their time standing around in a group conjecturing about what the synthesis tools will decide to output for relatively trivial blocks of code
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Brain Candy posted:you put a number in there i cant tell if youre making a joke by using a ridiculous number like that i was trying to imply that in my experience everyone who has brought up that science doesnt know everything and similar arguments are just trying to defend nonsense
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:i cant tell if youre making a joke did you notice how you are defending the certainy of your claim with anecdotal experience? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Cybernetic Vermin posted:more broadly the philosophy of science, and many other philosophical fields, have gotten a very bad deal in the last century. the breakthroughs in the natural sciences that ushered in this era has set up systems and worldviews which give very little time for such more fundamental, and hard to judge, areas. instead there has been a long period of great progress through small incremental discoveries, but it is hugely unclear whether the framework that has set up is even working well anymore Modern man has brought this whole world to an awe-inspiring threshold of the future. He has reached new and astonishing peaks of scientific success. He has produced machines that think and instruments that peer into the unfathomable ranges of interstellar space. He has built gigantic bridges to span the seas and gargantuan buildings to kiss the skies. His airplanes and spaceships have dwarfed distance, placed time in chains, and carved highways through the stratosphere. This is a dazzling picture of modern man’s scientific and technological progress. Yet, in spite of these spectacular strides in science and technology, and still unlimited ones to come, something basic is missing. There is a sort of poverty of the spirit which stands in glaring contrast to our scientific and technological abundance. The richer we have become materially, the poorer we have become morally and spiritually. We have learned to fly the air like birds and swim the sea like fish, but we have not learned the simple art of living together as brothers. Every man lives in two realms, the internal and the external. The internal is that realm of spiritual ends expressed in art, literature, morals, and religion. The external is that complex of devices, techniques, mechanisms, and instrumentalities by means of which we live. Our problem today is that we have allowed the internal to become lost in the external. We have allowed the means by which we live to outdistance the ends for which we live. So much of modern life can be summarized in that arresting dictum of the poet Thoreau: “Improved means to an unimproved end.” This is the serious predicament, the deep and haunting problem confronting modern man. If we are to survive today, our moral and spiritual “lag” must be eliminated. Enlarged material powers spell enlarged peril if there is not proportionate growth of the soul. When the “without” of man’s nature subjugates the “within,” dark storm clouds begin to form in the world. ---martin luther king jr
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Java is p deece imo
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:We have learned to fly the air like birds no we haven't Lutha Mahtin posted:and swim the sea like fish, mmm, nope Lutha Mahtin posted:but we have not learned the simple art of living together as brothers. yes we have, though as brothers who don't always get along but still, see any big city
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Brain Candy posted:did you notice how you are defending the certainy of your claim with anecdotal experience? no, i'm only confident in my experience not in how it applies to the world. i'm not even 100% confident that what i perceive as my experience is actually what i have experienced unfortunately, i have no other evidence upon which to form an opinion. i don't think there's been any studies on people making claims about the end of the scientific method merely to advance their own tightly-held beliefs, so i can only go on my faulty experience so my confidence in this claim is thusly calibrated anecdotal experience is the exactly correct evidence to use when speaking about what you're experienced Thermopyle fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Jun 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
he's trying to defend his original point that science is not the only way to know things, which you're agreeing with but not agreeing with? in absence of rigorous studies that often tend to be too small in scale in either sample size or time taken to reach the conclusion, we NEED to be willing to accept experiential evidence if we are willing to change or work on anything. unfortunately even experiential learning is polluted by a general lack of standards because this field is so varied, so it's gonna take a while before this lack of reliable scientific and experiential evidence is resolved, and even worse, to a degree the scientific method doesn't have a lot to hang onto that ISN'T experiential. even knowing the metrics you want to get out of a study, knowing what to control and even being able to control for it is so dependant on the test subjects who're part of the experiment being of genuinely equal capability without biases, and considering how wildly variant in capability people are, plus how dependant it can be on the kind of team they're in, where do you go from there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
yes, when it comes time to make a decision we just have to use the evidence we have no matter what its quality we also have to be really aware about how confident we should be in what our evidence is telling us people also become confused about what science can tell us in the hypothetical vs what science can tell us with the constraints we have (money, time, people, ethical considerations) Anyway i'm not even sure what we're discussing anymore wrt the thread subject.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:Java is p deece imo
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
Max Facetime posted:
let me black like me your rear end and send you through a major city in a beat out 91 grand am and see if you still think this
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
mods please rename this the empiricism / epistemology megathread
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:also note that the task described in that contest included the hardware equivalent of optimizing the output of your c compiler by looking at the assembly it emits, because that's just what you do to the point that this is a super-common full time occupation for CE grads, hand-optimizing layouts piece by piece and then verifying that they're still acceptably manufacturable
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
sounds like a job for machine learning™
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 06:11
|
|
|
cis autodrag posted:let me black like me your rear end and send you through a major city in a beat out 91 grand am and see if you still think this I'm not familiar with this stereotype but I guess we're doomed then
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 10:16
|
|
|
Max Facetime posted:I'm not familiar with this stereotype but I guess we're doomed then an investigative journalist turned his skin black (temporarily) to live as an african-american for a few weeks. he wrote a book about his experience titled Black Like Me no idea about the 91 grand am
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
rjmccall posted:nobody is ever going to run a 2-year study where teams of professional programmers use different programming languages to create and maintain competing products with the same initial spec and changing requirements google seems to do this all the time, so we just need to convince them to use a bit more scientific rigor
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:33 |
|
|
hackbunny posted:an investigative journalist turned his skin black (temporarily) to live as an african-american for a few weeks. he wrote a book about his experience titled Black Like Me beat up 90s gms are the official car of the ghetto because you can buy em for 500 bux cash and fix them with junk yard parts yourself. they attract police attention. dwb is a crime in most major cities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 00:31
|
|