Well, for people who are ridiculing the absurdity, note that it's software engineering at Google, not software engineering. One's peculiarities are another absurdity. Reserve judgement, and try to understand the rationale.
Hmm, I am getting a sense that modern engineers shows a sign of losing touch to computer science theoretical foundation.
It's not funny game. It's part of abstraction hierarchy and physical computing model vs. programming language computing model.
It's only funny because one would presume that there ever was a time the hardware was not playing "funny" game.
And no, it always has a giant abstraction gap between hierarchy, and that's a fundamental part of modern electronic computing. One shall allow oneself to learn those and get used to how things are actually working.
I am amused that one who know neither Chinese and Russian languages confidently claim that their media are lying, based on the reporting that one knows as biased.
Let's put in this way.
One saw a black box.
One was told that the black box contains some nasty staff.
One knows that the above statement is biased.
One then claim that the black box contains the nasty thing.
See how bias anchored one's thought, even if clearly this guy had no first hand information to make any judgement at all. Yet still be able to have a mental state that clearly established.
You know that Russian and Chinese media have English versions, and Google Translate and similar can be used to translate the original versions? The absolutely publish complete bullshit.
while i was replying to you, i meant “you” in general. his point is a valid one: that most people simply take the information that’s presented to them, and, despite knowing what the source of that information is, choose to believe it at face-value. whether this news is from state-controlled media or the new york times or wherever, people ignore the known fact that their news source is likely biased in some way and, without bothering to do any research themselves, let that news shape their opinions.
I mean, calling Zelenskyj a nazi dictator is quite stupid. He was elected in 2019, won elections against the previous Ukrainian 'dictator' (who was also put in the seat by the CIA if you believe the dictator narrative).
Case in comparison, bpf or ebpf. In that they are both a type of radically different approach on solving the old problem. Bpf being kernel programmability for app developer, wasm being portable execution environment.
Emotions do not serve any purpose. It's a abstract concept describing certain psychogical process in human that is not characterized by so-called rational thinking.
Most non artificial things are not serving any purpose, they are coincidents filtered through natural selection.
Most artificial things serve some purpose of its makers.
They may certainly be counterproductive at times, but if they truly served no purpose it seems unlikely we'd have them? Also there's at least mixed evidence for the existence of similar states in animals[1].
Hmm, that feels a bit like the difference between verifiability and falsifiability to me. It doesn't seem like adaptations need to be goal-driven, but if they were flat-out bad/destructive/unhelpful to the species, I would tend to expect them to fade over time? Pointing to any specific trait and saying it's useless, though, opens you up to arguments that you just haven't found the use yet.
There are a lot of accidents of evolution that don't have a "purpose". The shape/trajectory of the vagus nerve, the appendix, the human tailbone, etc...
This goes to the root of what we mean when we say "purpose". Are we saying the trait is "helping" to "achieve" some "goal", or are we really just saying that there's some relationship between the trait and the individual's environment, or that the existence of the trait can be explained by properties of the environment? If the latter, then are we stretching the meaning of the word "purpose"?
It's a bit like how some people say "everything happens for a reason" (in this sense reason points to a purpose), whereas I'm more of the mind that no, most things more or less happen for no particular reason (ie.: serving no particular purpose).
I would argue that it's not exactly clear whether you could even say that evolution itself has a "purpose". It's just something that happens, given a bunch of organisms competing for resources.
I understand why you're being downvoted, but I do think there is value in your comment. It's perhaps not the most artful articulation of ideas, but it points to serious (afaik) philosophical questions. Whether emotions have a purpose is both a semantic and a philosophical question.
Let's assume Mearsheimer is a putin sympathizer (that's even a stronger speculative assessment than apologist); does that render the information the professor stated less true?
I value the diversity on HN.
I mostly value when my view are reputed by facts and reasoning.
Well it's not about self criticism is harder. It's about rejecting self criticism at all. If you think today the media have a shred of self criticism in the true sense, I.e., they demand things to be changed based on their criticism of the said system, let's say, for example, on the liberal ideology. You will find none. The so-called criticism is nothing more than a quick trigger to release the emotional tension of the viewers.
What the author pointed out as a symptom, is the result of the systematic dumbdown of the population by our comparative overload, who might or might not have been conscious about it.
No, democracy is for governing human affairs in the areas of value based judgement, that being primarily in politics.
Software engineering is largely non value based, they are technical based. On things they designed for and on things they base their code upon. In such affairs, democracy is a incompatible framework. It's like my c++ compiler does not compile Java code, that's a technical design and facts. It has no implications to anything political.
> manages to get within 5-15% of a traditional kernel for the things they measured. That is impressive.
Top comment from the linked thread.
This is a bit out of context. 5-15% in any measurements to mainstream software is too easy. Even if it's operating system. We all know that.
This is why almost any papers that compare a research project's products with a mainstream production one in terms of performance is usually just for establishing context than actually comparison.
The 4th book of Frank Hurbert's dune saga. Or I personally think it's THE ending of the actual dune story line. Not only it completes the cycle started in Book 1 titled "dune". The 2 later books are really spin-off that tells a much smaller story.
God emperor shows Hurbert's astounding depth and width in understanding humans as the building blocks of the civilization. And gave an unprecedented interpretation of humanity (and ruthlessness).
The words are poetic with a sense of intonation built-in that renders a supernatural feeling, and had made me rethink how humans should live together.
It's also a book that ends at the beginning, and used one sentence to reveal the climax of the whole dune story line. One had to appreciate Herbert's immense imagination and skills to bring those into words, that depicts minuate details that are enthralling yet always points to the ultimate idea. A literary genius and magnificent architect in human language at the grandest scale.
That's the one book Ill bring along if I am on an one-way trip to Mars!
