Recent posts (max 20) - Browse or Archive for more

What "exist" and "real" mean.

There are two different kind of existence - one is of the mind and one of the universe (here "the" is redundant).

There are process (and only processes) or to be precise sub-processes in the universe, which itself is a one single unfolding process. No more, no less.

Processes do exist and are real. Nothing else is. What we call atoms are processes too.

For the mind, it's own abstractions and generalisations are real and seem to exist the way Nature exist. Mind sees its own creations as if they are real in the universe.

Strangely enough, most of these abstractions and generalisations (however valid and useful) do not exist outside ones own head (and common culture).

The veil of these concepts which distorts our perception of what is real had been recognised by Upanishadic seers and early Buddhists and is called the veil of Maya by them. The term Maya is even more general and signifies a source of delusion or misperceptions.

Mother Nature, for example, does not possess any numbers and does not count. There is no notion of counting at the level of molecular biology (no counters, no overflows). Information is structural, not digital. There is only structural pattern-matching in DNA/RNA/protein machinery.

This is an implicit proof that lots of concepts does not exist universally. Molecular biology uses literally everything what is real and available, and does not use what does not exist.

There is no notion of time, no notion of simultaneity (yes, everything is built as if nothing else exist - just triggers and message-passing (of "concrete" molecular structures).

The fundamental principle is that what seems real and existing for the mind does not necessarily (and usually do not) exist outside of it.

Mixing and matching concepts of the mind with real processes or their attributes is the cause of the fucking mess which is called modern science, which is actually modern astrology and alchemy based on sectarian consensus, like any religious sect, abstract models and simulations.

There are two concepts which does not exist. First one is simple - a number. There are literally no numbers anywhere of any kind. Just none. The other, less obvious but closely related, is so-called time-space (or absolute, "physical" time). It is nowhere to be found and cannot be experimentally demonstrated.

No, human-made clocks does not measure anything. They are man-made devices which trying to count equal intervals of whatever it happens to be. Of course, these devices are subject to gravitational influences, so they became distorted (as processes) and their reading vary depending on physical aspects of reality.

Have you seen any other devices made to support a human made abstractions? Visit any church or monastery, visit pyramids or Maya temples - there are no shortage of such devices in there.

The famous thought experiment by Einstein is logically unsound, or, to be precise, has type errors, mixing concepts of different kind - existing and nonexistent concepts of the mind.

Again, clocks measure nothing. Time is a derived notion. So each clock is completely unrelated to each other, unlike, say, thermometers or other devices built to measure what is real.

Knowledge is power

Knowledge is power.

But knowing is not merely a process of collecting and memorising facts here are and there. It is precisely like solving a jigsaw puzzle where each new piece (of information) must match (does not contradict) the ones that has been matched before.

Not just that, but once in a while there is a fact which contradicts (disproves) the previous results - it literally doesn't fit. In that case the results must be thrown away and the whole inductive process backtrack to the last non-contradictory set of matching pieces. Demolition of socially constructed bullshit is a recursive process.

Neti neti - not this, not that.

But once the puzzle is completed (at least in principles) one would see things as they really are.

The Buddha discovered (popularized) this path.

Solved

So, basically I have it solved analytically. Ancient eastern philosophy still holds.

Any simulation of a multiple causation stochastic phenomena is as representative of reality as a cartoon animation movie. This is almost a definition.

The imperial college of London has been released its corvid19 simulation on GitHub. I am still in doubt what was the purpose of that endeavour and how much money has been wasted on it. I am also sure that the authors think themselves as advanced scientists and that they are entitled to an upper middle class life of a scientific researcher.

That model, however was a disconnected from reality naive bullshit. They have modelled neighborhoods of various density full of people of a few kinds and a function with emulates contagion parameterized by a few naive assumptions. They ran it a few times and they released their recommendations to the govts.

A success story by no means. Heroes on the blessing edge.

There is however a few principal objections. First, this naive model is literally as oversimplified as a cartoon. Tom and Jerry if you wish.

A model which trying to represent the whole outbreak as a single chemical reaction, based on concentration of virus particles, temperature as intensity of social interactions, etc, would be a way better cartoon but a cartoon nevertheless.

Abstract concepts of pure mathematics does not exist in what we call reality. They exist only in what we call Maya - a veil made by mind out of socially constructed concepts which hides reality from our primordial awareness (the one newborns and animals posses).

There is no such thing as randomness (it is a vague mathematical concept), there is no such thing as perfect bell-shaped curves, there is no such thing as estimated probabilities. These are all just socially constructed notions. Memes.

There is no way to model a stochastic process which evolves as you trying to capture it's dynamics. This is a philosophical principle, it cannot be short-circuited. All the models capture the past, the results. The past is made out of effects, not the causes.

The only way to deal with multiple causation is to know all the relevant factors, which is possible only with simple discrete fully deterministic system such as coins, dices or decks of cards. These methods cannot, again, in principle, be used against stochastic processes. They are simply not applicable - it is just a type error like multiplication of trees by birds.

Modeling of stochastic system is the new astrology. No matter how sophisticated (one might try to train a neural network to learn parameters for a model - no difference, it is still uses the past as it's source) a model will always be disconnected from what is as a movie or a story. By the same reason it will never predict anything valuable. It would be just "like what happened", a mere bunch of ideas.

That model is useless. The actual corvid19 numbers in UK just showed no correlation with any naive model. But successful astrology will definitely make you rich and famous, just like a few millennia ago .

The Big Picture

Now I have got it as a big picture. The 20th century was the century of abstract bullshit, which flourished at the second half of 19th. Hegelian "philosophy", Froudian and Jungian "psychology", Marxist "economics", and even theoretical "physics" has its roots way back in the Platonic memes of pure abstract entities and imaginary escape of a pure reason into the realm of pure ideas, escape from mundane biological reality of which it is a merely by-product.

No wonder abstractionism and related art forms have been peaked at the same time. Abstract bullshit as an art form, the real apogee.

Now, in the age of molecular biology and computers we begin to realise that abstract bullshit, like Froudian abstract entities of the mind, were not even close to what is, Marxism, which goes against the major social instincts of any biological organism had not a single chance, and that about ninety percent of what we call modern science is socially constructed and maintained by sectarian consensus bullshit.

Wrong abstractions is the root of all evil. Reality is very "concrete" and "mechanical" so to speak. Mother Nature does not even count (but has the notion of information - structural, not digital), leave alone things like potential or purpose.

Everything is just a sub-processes in one single unfolding process which we call Universe (notice lack of the) or Reality. Indian Upanishadic seers and Buddha were right. Everything what follows was mostly a regression, at least all the western abstract bullshit.

Modern Programming

Now I understood what exactly is wrong with f*cking node_modules and Rust's crates -- the amateur developers are using redundant, useless abstractions a lot and you have all the fancy shit in your hundreds (thousands in the case of node_modules abomination) dependencies.

Everything is going to regress back to PHP - a pile of narcissistic amateur crap -- fractal of bad design.

It is almost as bad as it is in Haskell, where every single idiot is trying to use all the esoteric stuff he read about in this or that blog post.

C++ is more sane in this way. And Haskell is a bliss if you are using just a few modules which Cabal or GHC itself uses.

Avoid Javascript at all costs. Rust is still an ambicious amateur Ruby-ish.

Deep Crisis

BTW, corvid19 outbreak made evident and obvious the deep crisis of so called modern "science" which is based on sectarian consensus, peer-reviewed bullshit, compilations of sources instead of tedious and costly experimental research.

Basically, the situation is exactly the same as in obscure branches of "research" like Tibetology and Tantric "Buddhism" which is exactly a complication of anecdotes and citations of unqualified amateurs. The famous bullshitters like Tucci invented whole civilizations and are most widely cited nevertheless.

So called scientific consensus is, obviously, never a criterion for the Truth. Only series of replicable experiments are. Sectarian consensus is what proper science emerged to fight against. Now pseudo-intellectual posers ruined it back to the level of astrology and alchemy, with probabilities and simulations and what not.

The argument about complexity of phenomena is misused. When faced with overwhelming complexity one has to slowdown and backtrack to study underlying principles instead of modeling and simulating poorly understood nonsense. There is no other way.

Half of ML in one post

You don't even know what you're talking about and throw random buzzwords

lol, so you didn't get the argument. ok. I will try to spoonfeed

classification algorithms are applicable only to a discrete, deterministic environments, which are stable and finite. language is such an environment, pictures, obviously, because cats have stable traits which do not change at all, etc. I hope you get the idea.

markets have no such stable traits, so each and any classificator will be plain wrong. it will capture noise and will produce a noise, no matter how much data you feed to it. no stable traits - no ML classification possible.

it is that simple lmao. to have pattern-recognition you have to have patterns. real, not abstract and imaginary.

you code will work, but your results will be noisy and inconsistent.

Fuck political correctness and fuck censure

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23022864

This is just an attention whoring, bragging and self-praise, lots of ambitions with little or no real education. Canonical definition of a russian. Any attempt to apply mathematical methods for modeling of fully observable, deterministic, stable systems, like probability or neural networks (they assume, by definition, stable patterns, which arise from underlying laws at the training stage and in feedback loops) will inevitably lead to a failure. Always. In principle.

Gamefication of markets is even more stupid idea, hence, again, an adequate game model requires a well-defined set of rules which does not change in the middle of the game, and, like any other model or simulation, requires that all (every) relevant factors has been adequately represented, which will never be the case.

Last but not least, one never trade in the middle of the chart, on the past data. If a model fits the past data it only means that it has been trained on the past data, which is already "stable". It will be unable to deal with new data because it will be nothing like training and testing set in principle.

Even classic methods from signal processing will not do, because a signal implies regularly and predictability (a predetermined set of probabilities), while markets do not possess such properties.

This is just misapplication of methods without any understand of underlying phenomena, methods being used, their applicability and limitations.

Read some Hamming lmao.

SJW censorship ruined HN community.

I have got banned on 5 different accounts for comments like this:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22382317

The classic case, the gold standard - the math is correct, the programmer is one of the best in the whole world (I have read PAIP) but the simulation is completely meaningless. First of all, almost no (zero) transactions occur across different social strates (or castes), at least in real world, like here, in India (where I am living for now).

Second, randomness does not exist. Each social dynamic has its causes, too complex to capture, so it is much easier (and profitable) to assume randomness. However, randomness implies lose of any meaning. A blur which ruins the original image.

A naive model superimposed on a too complex to comprehend reality is neither explanatory or even meaningful. This is just a philosophy 101. Map is not a territory, simulation (a cartoon) is merely, well, a cartoon.

Third, this kind of modeling bullshit nowadays is literally everywhere, and this is called "science".

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22207961

Education (and inflated government) is a new way of signaling a higher social state, similar to scholastic priesthood of the past. It is entirely a social construct (aside from practical, concrete-math-based STEM and engineering).

Another real-life aspect is that passing through a really decent schools like MIT or Caltech (or Yale, as an exception) is a proof (by example) that one is capable of self-discipline, concentration, self-improvement, able to do research and learn on by doing.

Aside from that a degree is just and merely a social status certificate, a certificate of belonging to a higher social class (no matter actual skills and abilities).

I myself am from a third-world social shithole and never went to a high school. I could, however, beat a vast majority of so-called liberal arts majors and even some Stanford grads, which I regularly did on this very site before CoCs and bans for use of an "inappropriate" language.

So, there is nothing much to talk about. A crappy degree is a social status certificate, and obsession with language usage, long-words and polit-correctness and fancy abstract terminology is merely a signaling of assumed, self-proclaimed (and almost always absent) virtue.

On the crisis of Go

We should save Go from the current crisis of overconfident narcissistic idiocy.

In the good old times only very few people, who have passed through harsh selection (basically, you have to me Math or EE major) were allowed into PL design. Out of that we got APL, Smalltalk, Common Lisp, Scheme, Miranda, Haskell, Standard ML and Scala - all the nice things.

When demagogues and narcissistic bullshitters were allowed to design a language we got C++, Java with all the inconsistencies and sloppy kitchen sink thinking which are so characteristic of Liberal Arts majors.

When complete degenerates are allowed to design a language, abominations like PHP or Javascript were born.

So, Go has been famous for keeping the list of features small, orthogonal (on the implementation side) and complementary (on the semantic side). It is precisely this what makes it such a success.

It has a multiple return values (not a tuple) similar to Common Lisp and this is the best we could have. Literally.

Introducing the full-blown type-classes (or better to call them type-traits, suggesting that they are composable, or flavors as they used to be named by Symbolics) is a too much effort, basically a design from scratch is required.

Just adding a Maybe monad, as idiots are suggesting, is a bullshit "solution" since it requires type-classes in the first place.

If you are that fucking smart (hint: you are not - thousands of exponentially brighter people have pushed the field since 60s especially in Common Lisp and ML communities) - just fork the language and make it your way, but, please, leave us alone and stop spamming us with your naive bullshit.

Some pastas

some gems from /g/

Ocaml is a product of brain-dead people, like Java. It is really that bad. No proper numeric tower in a functional language is a disaster.

Haskell is a miracle, but it is plagued by idiots and narcissistic degenerates who abuse the type system and Monadic IO by exercising in an idiocy of producing too abstract too general and useless data types where just a function composition and sum-types will do.

So, learn to reduce everything to the smallest possible sets of appropriate idioms.

The current public domain Haskell code form fpcomplete and other narcissistic idiots is utter bullshit. Everything could be done with much more ease and simplicity by merely porting stuff from SML, Erlang (with some message-passing lib) or Common Lisp world. Laziness has been solved by Monadic IO.

Beauty is very very relevant, because it is a sign of approaching perfection (which is a state when there is nothing more left to take away - a local optimum). In nature it is a product of countless trials and errors, while in human crafts it is a product of quality.

Beauty arises out of very good quality, you pleb.

Take a look at the evolution of Haskell's prelude, lets say from ghc-6.x and up to now.

Contrast is which the fucking abomination which is called foundation-0.x which is a product of enterprise degenerates.

and

Your proposition was that code cannot be elegant, beautiful and maintainable at the same time.

I have shown you a concrete example with refutes your idiotic assumption. Just this.

good thread

Tribute

universal_server() ->
    receive
       {become, F} ->
           F()
    end.

factorial_server() ->
    receive
       {From, N} ->
           From ! factorial(N),
           factorial_server()
    end.

factorial(0) -> 1;
factorial(N) -> N * factorial(N-1).

test() ->
    Pid = spawn(fun universal_server/0),
    Pid ! {become, fun factorial_server/0},
    Pid ! {self(), 50},
    receive
        X -> X
    end.

Joe Armstrong is gone

Very sad day. It is a real lose. He was a great wizard, principle-guided.

On the second thought I would say that I always felt happiness and gratitude while reading his books or watching his talks - a lone voice of sanity and principle-guided reason in the sea of screaming bullshit, a lone figure in a crowd of bearded narcissistic clowns, like Wadler or whoever it might be.

This gratitude for showing the power of clear disciplined reasoning guided by the right principles I would carry with me and will try to pass further. Thank you, Joe! You were a great teacher, a guru and you literally have moved the earth!

I think I should have a drink.

Snapd

snapd cannot resume a download after a network error (network change)

fucking degenerates

Oh god

lngnmn1@ideapad:~$ node
> "" == '0'
false
> 0 == ''
true
> 0 == '0'
true
> false == 'false'
false
> false == '0'
true

Wow

This is what we call inconsistent behavior. So much for the principle of less astounishment

lngnmn1@ideapad:~$ python3
Python 3.6.7 (default, Oct 22 2018, 11:32:17) 
[GCC 8.2.0] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> round(1.5)
2
>>> round(2.5)
2
>>> round(3.5)
4 
>>> round(4.5)
4
>>> round(5.5)
6
>>> round(6.5)
6
>>> 

Fuck off HN

Look, I am really tired of all this. It is very emotionally taxing for nothing. It is not easy to argue in a foreign language about subtle topics. All I have tried to say is that there are language features based on extensive research. Erlang is one example, Go is another. There are obvious counter examples everyone know and love.

My first comment was about that by making an IO selector a language construct the need call Jetty which calls Netty, which call Shitty is eliminated, and the code could be reduced into a single function with a few helpers. This has been demonstrated by Rob Pike in every single fucking video on Youtube.

Creating another general purpose event-driven framework, Tokio or whatever, is, of course, very rewarding, especially for those imposers who call themselves "engineers", but it seems that engineering as a discipline is about reducing to an optimum, instead of piling up fancy bullshit. Every single video of Joe Armstrong on Youtube is about this very difference. We already have way too many Java frameworks.

We could actually compare into which assembly Go's code with select statement compiles versus Rust's code, including dependencies, but it is so obvious that it is almost frustrating to spell this explicitly. That is why I mentioned LOCs.

It is really frustrating to argue when some unknown idiots are flagging your posts without offering any single reason. BTW, if you want to know how shotings are originated - this is this exactly the way. But don't worry, I am very far away in some third world shithole, and I don't care that much.

In good old times, on LKML and everywhere else smart people would focus on meaning and ignore the style, which is one's own choice, while nowadays they attack our style, ignoring the meaning. So be it.

Just fuck this modern HN with all that SJW idiocy.

I really can't stand it, so fuck you, HN.

There is the discussion.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18636125

The fucking idiots are claiming, that some gut bacteria have been cured autism in a mice!

What the fuck is autism in mice? A cross-species disorder in a species with unrelated structure of the brain? Really?

I am struggling with autism my whole life, and some clowns are getting paid for "modeling" autism on unrelated species? Fuck you! Just fuck you fucking degenerates.

No wonder I have got banned. It is okay to be banned by idiots. There are my post which has been flagged by fucking SJW activists.

What kind of fucking bullshit is this? Autism is a spectrum of compensating behavioral patterns that emerge as the way to diminish unusually high emotional stress (which is also a spectrum) due to genetically transmitted "imbalances" in a brain's structure (and/or biochemistry). So, nowadays every kind of fucking bullshit deserve the label "working hypothesis" instead of "gross incompetence"? BTW, autistic spectrum disorders are "hijacked" the most stable evolutionary strategy of "good looks" - quiet village beauties are carrying these alleles (presumably, product of inbreeding).

There is no coincidence, that ASDs affects mostly boys. Motherly instincts, it seems, diminish (or compensate for) behavioral deviations.

If one could come down to earth from the Ivory towers of abstract bullshit and look at the real world, the answers are out there.

and

How this is related to humans?

What is autism in mice in the first place?

What kind of fucking degenerates are "studying" or "modeling" a cross-species >"mental" disorder???

On species with an almost unrelated brain structure as a "model"?? What kind of >bullshit is this?

and

In not so distant past many of weak-minded but talkative, ambitious and narcissistic people could have find their niche in any organized religion. Almost every fancy bullshit, as long as it fits the canon, could be accepted, praised and even rewarded. There were never a shortage of fancy bullshit. In the current age religions has been obsoleted, but weak-minded "creative" people are still here. So, science became a new religion, especially when it hit the wall of empiricism, a limitation, which has been realized by ancient eastern philosophers (Brahman is unattainable to conditioned intellect which could see nothing, but its conditioning). Modern day's notion of impossibility to break an abstraction barrier (see the wiring of a processor from the level of code) is the very same notion reformulated.

Every bizarre bullshit could be framed as a hypothesis and published, giving a high social status of "theoretical researches" to its authors (instead of much more appropriate status of talkative idiots). It is due to social status, similar to those of a monk in medieval ages, which one's parents could buy for their children by paying them through a costly elite religious school. Nothing new under the moon.

I personally prefer to see those disconnected from reality academics, who gave advice to Macron (based on disconnected from reality abstract notions) to tax the population to combat climate change, to be held accountable for all the damages caused by resulting riots and being forced to pay for their ignorant arrogance, but this will never happen, because academics are allowed to produce bullshit labeled as working hypothesis. The rest of us aren't.

Fundamentally wrong ;)

The very first page shows an utter lack of conceptual discipline (sloopy thinking).

For instance, the following set of commands runs the hello_world example:

git clone https://github.com/SergioBenitez/Rocket
cd Rocket
git checkout v0.4.0-rc.2
cd examples/hello_world
cargo run

Set implies no notion of ordering whatsoever, while a sequence of commands implies a particular definite order.

It is a list of commands, not a set. Don't use fancy words you not fully understand.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18515678

Epic fight (or fail?)