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.
Against the fundamental notions of product types, records, unions and intersections, binary relations?
Idiots, idiots everywhere.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Good morning lmao.
Anyone with a tech background or a few functioning neurones would see this back in 2018.
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.
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.
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 (
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.
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.
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.
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
Autism is inability to deal with ones own emotions due to some genetic mutations.
It is clearly and verifiable inherited and carried by pretty women who are less affected, being compensated by motherly instincts for social enpirements.
Women are traditionally more emotional and rely on feeling, so society (families) readily accept autistic women as long as they do their duties.
Physical beauty (mostly face) guarantee a marriage. This is how autistic traits are not washed out.
Each autistic person develop his own behavioural patterns to compensate being overwhelmed by his own emotions. (Depending on severity these patterns vary from Turing to Rainman so to speak). This is the main principle.
Everything else is just bullshit.
Oh, really. So applying probabilities to partially observable systems yields bullshit, and estimated probabilities based on observations of the past events does not predict anything for evolving systems? I got banned here for such assertions lmao.
What else is new?
Lol, it won't fly. First of all, science is just a methodology of establishing truth about some aspects of what we call reality. Everything which cannot be verified by a reproducible experiment is not a science. All theories, therefore, are mere theories. Analogue of religious sects. It also automatically disqualifies all humanities, and especially socially constructed bullshit like race theories, etc.
That, in turn, will strip high social status of academics and "people doing science" from way too many people (which is absolutely good, so it will never happen).
Science as a social construction took (along with big government) place of religion as prestigious occupation and the way to have a high social status.