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

I think I got it

I think I understand what happened with HN (I have been there since the beginning and haven't noticed the slow and gradual change).

Imagine that you are visiting the annual Kagyu Monlam gathering (a multi-million business) in Budh Gaya. Imagine that instead of being a naive fool you are arguing that this is just a socially constructed (in hundreds of years) and carefully maintained pyramid scheme to keep a very high social status and wealth of a very few people involved in this scheme (which is what it ultimately and actually is, no matter what you think about how nice and cute all the lamas are).

Obviously, you would be kicked out in no time, as a some kind of a freak (compared to all the nicely dressed and well-behaved spiritual imposers and Tantra experts affiliated with various liberal arts schools). No one wants to hear that they are just a sect.

Nowadays "successful", highly paid techies form a new high caste of society, and they too, obviously, do not want to hear that what they do could be done with just a few basic tools, like Emacs and org-mode, or that concrete (discrete) math, logic and Eastern (non-abstract) philosophy is all that is required to be a really good (but, may be less successful) engineer.

This is what happened with HN. Their assumed high social status is routinely challenged by some street dogs like me, and all they have to do is to ban us, because we are too smug and - what hurts the most - for a reason.

So fuck you, HN, one more time.

My fault is that I am still thinking that it is the same site I used to visit 10 years ago, while everything has been ruined.


https://karma-engineering.com/lab/blog/Flagged this is what I am responding to.

HN as a safe space for imposters

I have sketched a nice and simple approach to remote (working together) - an old schoo and principle guided - a classic approach. (Why, yes, I love Robert Pirsig and ride my bike across Himalayas).

https://karma-engineering.com/lab/wiki/Remote

However, it seems that there is absolutely zero demand, despite all the hype about DAOs and what not.

Also emphasis is on that a TracWiki (or a hierarchical of .org files) and git is still good enough for everything.

So, what is the problem? Legal stuff? Lack of total control by "employers"? Or just the bubble has been already burst?

This got flagged.

And this is the reply I got

I have no idea what you are trying to communicate here. Is this just some kind of philosophizing blog post? Is it some kind of solicitation? Is it some kind of software documentation? It’s very poorly written (ungrammatical), unfocused and makes no sense. The question in this post also is very hard to parse.. too many buzzwords and you are kinda all over the place. Maybe try to simplify your language, take less detours in your line of discussion

Who the fuck are you to lecture and censor me?

Meanwhile some, let's say, NFT or dog coins posts are ok.

A polite fuckyou-review

There is something deeply cultural in how Russians are falling in love with abstract bullshit, which they call theories to signal that they are smarter than they really are. It must be related to almost a century of brainwashing with Marxism, Leninism and Freudian and Hegelian bullshit.

Like any consumers of abstract systems they love to "stretch" the terminology a bit, forgetting that words are supposed to have precise meaning (being associated with actual aspects of reality) and that terminology should have been defined unambiguously before being used.

Of course, this is not necessarily required if you just want to get some hype by shitposting about some trendy abstract bullshit, which, like any esoteric and theosophical subject, never get critically reviewed by adepts of the sect.

By the way, so called Category Theory is the single biggest virtue-signaling opportunity, second only to religions, and, ironically enough, like Haskell, it is a trap for pseudo-intellectual narcissistic idiots.

Well, I will break the rule and do partial peer-review of this piece:

https://boris-marinov.github.io/category-theory-illustrated/05_logic/

I know I will be down-voted into oblivion and banned for this post on HN (which has been evolved into a virtue-signaling platform), so I will publish my review on my own website.

So, lets begin.

Logic is the science of the possible.

he said

As such, it is at the root of all other sciences, all of which are sciences of the actual, i.e. that which really exists.

The very first passage raises some eyebrows, to say the least. What does "the science of possible" even mean? As far as I know, science is an evolved (from merely speculation) methodology to establish the truth about certain aspects of reality.

It consists of a systematic and well-structured process, which require careful observation of a phenomena in question, formulation of a hypothesis regarding some well-defined and carefully measured aspect of it, design of a replicable (reproducible) experiment to test the hypothesis, and then refining or reformulating the hypothesis depending on the results of experiments.

Science, therefore, implies only something possible - a science of impossible is a plain nonsense. The whole methodology (which is what the world "science" stands for) is to be applied to actual possibilities, and an absence of a result is a signal that some theorizing is, perhaps, went too far.

Logic studies the rules by which knowing one thing leads you to conclude (or prove) that some other thing is also true, regardless of the things’ domain (e.g. scientific discipline) and by only referring to their form.

Well, logic is not the study of the rules of inference. It is the study of a sound argumentation (including formal reasoning), to which the rules of inference (or of simplification of proofs) are just one technical aspect.

Being sloppy in terminology leads to this "to conclude (or prove) that some other thing is also true" and even to more horrifying "regardless of the things’ domain". This sloppiness is the sign of a conceptual mess.

First of all, a proof is not in the same category as conclusion. Applying an operator (OR in this case) to both of them is a type-error, plain and simple.

A proof is a reproducible (like an experiment) and verifiable sequence of terms, from a set of premises to a conclusion, which can be verified by the whole formalism - the particular system in question.

The use of logic to verify its own terms is the fundamental and definitive quality and is reflected in the recursive nature of any general (or concrete) simplifier (or evaluator).

Recursive, convergent processes are fundamental to any system of logic, of which mathematical induction is a specialization. Such view of a process (recursive and convergent i.e. spiral shaped) is fundamental to the Universe itself.

Second, there is no such thing as logic regardless of the domain. This statement should be re-read a few times.

There is nothing ephemeral or god given out there which is valid (or even exist) regardless of the domain. Literally nothing.

Although there are rules of inference based on the form of terms (compound terms with connectives), such terms cannot be formed abstractly, without domain knowledge. Unless you are Hegel, of course.

The principle here is that your premises has been proven valid (by the very same recursive process, which relies on what is already known, including the rules of inference) before they are being used as terms in new compound propositions.

That "Socrates is a Man" deduction reflects a few deep facts about biological evolution (that what we classify as species have common traits or qualities (attributes) based on which the mind classify them as "an external observer").

There is no justification to assume validity or existence of Modus Ponens as an entity disconnected from a domain.

So what Modus Ponens is? Well, it is an expression in a meta-language, a captured generalization, which is being observed again and again in domain-specific languages.

It captures the law of causation, that everything has its causes, and, it also generalizes to categorical thinking, which, in turn, is possible only because there are physical laws and the law of causation in the first place (everything which mind categorizes is because of causation).

Again, disconnected from the domain it loses meaning and ceases to exist.

And yes, there is a fundamental problem with the classic truth-tables, in part where falsehood implies anything. They cannot be universal because they contradict the [Multiple] Causality Principle. One of them must be wrong, and it is not the causality, of course.

instead of the word “formal” we used another similar word, namely “abstract”, and instead of “logical system” we said “theory”.

This is bullshit in its essence. Formal and abstract are unrelated, unless they are "purely formal" (which is nonsense) and "purely abstract" (which under-educated virtue-signalers love so much). And, of course, a logical system is not a theory.

today most people agree that every mathematical theory is actually logic plus some additional definitions added to it.

No, it is not. Formal logic is a sub-discipline (actually, a meta-language, the one above domain-specific languages), which includes a methodology for formal reasoning (reasoning, based on the form of compound expressions with involves certain logical connectives). Again, the premises must be valid apriory (or being form a valid, non-contradictory set of axioms) which connects and grounds it in reality.

Logical connectives and predicates operate at the level of the meta-language (or a particular logical system). It has been discovered that this meta-language must be typed (the conceptual space must be be partitioned).

A mathematical theory is, by definition, uses mathematical logic (which is what makes mathematics what it is), but using mathematical formalism and notation does not promote bullshit into realm of scientific disciplines.

rules of inference are almost the same thing except they allow us to actually distill the conclusion from the premises.

What the fuck is "distill"? Is this some vodka-induced logic, Ivan? Similar to Hegelian, but from Russia with love?

I am sorry, I cannot continue to read this bullshit. As one may imagine, it will not get any better down below.

What is important is to show what a fucking bullshit this virtue-signalling witting really is. Remember, that a single logical flaw is enough to discard the whole line of argument.

And no, this "theory" is nothing but a graphical representation of structures of some similar concepts, which, in turns, are generalizations, sometimes too abstract to remain real. Monoid, perhaps, where to stop.

Is π the Same in Every Universe?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27818986

This is a double barrel idiotic question. First of all, there is no other universes. More precisely, there is no way to know or even assume the existence of other.

Second, pi is a notion (generalisation) of human mind, and does not exist anywhere outside of shared culture. It is just a relation of two abstract notions.

Yes, other observers could come to the same notions and conclusions, but it is only a theoretical possibly.

Idiots Against SQL

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27791539

Against the fundamental notions of product types, records, unions and intersections, binary relations?

Idiots, idiots everywhere.

What Are the Odds We Are Living in a Computer Simulation

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27737069

This is are a meaningless questions. One cannot calculate any such odds in principle. It is an application of a wrong concept. The real answer is that in cannot be known, again, in principle.

The first such answer has been given by Upanishadic seers back then, based on the principle that intellect, conditioned by perceptions, cannot know. Observations of effects is not enough to know the causes and "mechanics".

The modern answer is that abstraction barriers are impenetrable (yes, in principle). There is absolutely no way to even guess an actual wiring of a processor from the level of code (separated by a few layers of abstraction barriers).

The Limits to Blockchain Scalability

Why do we even take this punk seriously? I would like to read something from really bright and qualified people like Lamport, who have studied distributed systems for decades.

It's time for us in the tech world to speak out ab...

What should we talk about? Tokens are merely chips in the global network of online casinos.

Ethereum is an amateur crap, technically like early PHP webshit. Btc is better but it in principle cannot scale, so it will remain a mere technological curiosity.

Cardano is a corporation-like swamp, but yes, it has been affiliated with the best minds in PL world, at least on paper.

Everything else is either scams, "swaps" or memes. What should we speak about?

Another thread to remember

Bitcoin Blockchain Visualization

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26859895

It should be included in textbooks how IOHK is failing to deliver by turning their Haskell into enterprise java with monads (instead of keeping it as logic and math with actions/effects). Fpcomplete got it all wrong. (Don't read their tutorials, obsessed with strictness - it is a crap).

Haskell is a language to formalize problems and define declarative solutions using equational reasoning.

It is a pure logic, not some funny ML with laziness by default.

No one gives a shit what programming language you use

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26621344

Only if you do webshit or CRUD. Formal verification people, however, do care a lot.

Haskell is logic, so if you have managed to express your solution in Haskell and it typechecks and compiles, you suddenly have more than just code.

But, of course, Javascript...

Nix is the ultimate DevOps toolkit

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26748696

No. Unnecessary, redundant abstractions and wrapping is never the answer. Standardized interfaces and protocols are.

Erlang and Go got it right. We should learn from hardware people, not from virtue signalling narcissistic assholes.

Nix is a cancer. Stable/standardized and versioned interfaces is a remedy.

The most important statistical ideas of the past 50 years

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26799702

Statistics (merely observation and counting) cannot establish or even discover causation in principle. Period. No matter how many per reviewed gibberish papers will be published, the philosophical principle will stand.

What you observe are effects. Causes are not there.

Only discrete, fully observable, simple systems, like dice or a deck of cards, could be modelled adequately.

Most of real world complex systems with multiple causation cannot.

Advanced statistics is a definition of a socially constructed sectarian movement.

Nassim Taleb: Bitcoin failed as a currency and because...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26840006

Good morning lmao.

Anyone with a tech background or a few functioning neurones would see this back in 2018.

55% of all Tether, $25B, were created in 2021

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26842986

Supply and demand, why? Some demand comes from retail, who wants to convert their crypto or USD into it, other demand comes from a exchanges, of course, and yet another from whoever it was for whatever they want. Of course, on a retail side the meme "1 usdt = 1 USD" will "hold", because it is a meme "social contract" in which normies believe. However, on the exchange and crooks side there could be almost arbitrary arrangements, including bulk discounts, long term loans, etc.

This is what lack of transparency is for.

We could easily argue that comparable amount has been used by retail, because the whole Ponzi is to sell to them. They always pay a full price plus fees.

Broken logic.

I finally got what is so wrong with these idiotic English examples of silly "logical" implications.

Unrelated expressions cannot constitute a valid logical implication.

Just like that. There must be a relation. Preferably causal.

And when we consider an implication as establishing of a necessary and sufficient condition, necessity should be related to causation.

2 + 2 = 4 does NOT imply 1 - 1 = 0.

These two propositions (both True) are unrelated.

And, of course, False implies nothing. This only valid in mathematical logic. So is inclusive OR.

Mathematical logic is special due to referential transparency of valid expressions and equational reasoning, as a consequence.

Truth tables, not causality or any natural laws controls mathematical logic. This is why False "implies" True and both truths are OR.

Reality has only causal implications and exclusive ORs.

Haskell Requires Perfection "When There is Nothing More To Take Away"

With Haskell perfection is not optional, but required. Otherwise one ends up deep into redundant abstract bullshit, unnecessary wrapping mess, which would be even worse than J2EE bullshit.

Another great example is brevity of speech of smart autistic people compared to verbal diarrhea of intelligence cosplaying imposers.

Dalai Lama speaks a few sentences at a time, but these are well though, have no redundancy no decoration and no long words to impress idiots.

This is precisely how Haskell code must be written - Just Right (the Buddha's principle) or the principle of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry: Perfection is achieved when there is nothing more to take away (which is implied in Buddha's Just Right).

The modern mantra for that is Data Dominates, which means that after finding the most appropriate (Just Right) data structures, the algorithms and the code (implementation) just follow.

For Haskell the mantra is Just Right Types, and everything else follows. It must be explicitly said - The most straightforward, down-to-earth types, such as Sequences, Trees, Tables (Traversable, Foldable, etc), NOT Free Monads and similar stuff.

Monads is just a convenient formal conceptual framework to enforce an abstraction barrier for a declarative (pure functional) language. No more, no less. Explicit order of evaluation is enforced by function call nesting, which is at the core of Monads (and Arrows) implementation.

Kleisli categories and stuff is just an abstract framework which provided an insight of how a barrier could be generalized.

Just this.

What Is Wrong With GPT3 and related models.

The linguistic researchers of the past were much more systematic guys than modern rML imposers.

Most notably, the fathers of NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming, a pseudo-science) realized that humans have at least two representations, in principle. One, so called Deep Structure (representation) is how our abstractions (maps of the world) are stored in a brain, and Surface Structure one, which is used for verbal communication, after verbalization (literally encoding) for a transmission.

What they did not realize, that this Deep Structure is not arbitrary (by no means) but reflects the constraints of the environment, of which everything, including a brain, is a product.

Genetically transmitted structure of a brain encodes environmental constraints.

This is not for visual or motor cortexes, but for speech areas too. It reflects, for example, that there are things, process, attributes, and events. Deep structure is not arbitrary, like they trying to make it with NNs, it is the opposite - the structure is highly optimized, and it mimics (maps) reality (environment).

This is precisely why (and how) a meaningful speech could be produced - it is just a verbalization of inner conceptual "maps" (represented as brain structures), which reflects what is real.

This is why children are producing meaningful phrases instead of infinite patterns of arbitrary noise, for example.

So, any model based on merely weight will never produce anything meaningful. Only almost indistinguishable from meaningful, which is even more dangerous.

What Is Wrong With HN

Censorship is bad for many reasons, most notably it discourages freedom of expression, which is absolutely crucial part of communication.

All the harsh words, name-calling, etc, are creating required, necessary tension, which is fruitful in the long run, because it encourages people to become stronger. The way Navi seals gets trained, the way fraternity goes on in any college, etc, etc.

HN became a walled garden, safe space for *mediocrity*, with some "sheriffs" patrolling it. The community has been quickly degenerated into some sort of LinkedIn, full of imposers, cosplay of intelligence and commonplaceness.

Below are examples of comments for which I got banned so many times, and yet I refuse to follow any CoC or frame my emotional responses differently, because the emotions are crucial part of the message.

So, fuck off.

Is Philosophy an Art?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26456223

Philosophy used to be a systematic attempt to answer just one question - What Is? (or what is real?) Science emerged as a standard methodology much later.

Abstract bullshitting, which is mistakenly called philosophy too, may be considered as an art, like storytelling.

To clarify - fancy philosophical systems have nothing to do with philosophy. They are just piles of abstractions