Comment author: grendelkhan 04 December 2014 09:48:07PM *  32 points [-]

If it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid.

"Murphy's Laws of Combat"

Comment author: aausch 28 December 2014 08:43:16PM 1 point [-]

the map is not the territory. if it's stupid and it works, update your map.

Comment author: ike 15 December 2014 08:01:40PM 4 points [-]

The situation is far worse than that. At least a compiled program you can: add more memory or run it on a faster computer, disassemble the code and see at which step things go wrong, rewind if there's a problem, interface with programs you've written, etc. If compiled programs really were that bad, hackers would have already won (as security researchers wouldn't be able to take apart malware), drm would work, no emulators for undocumented devices would exist.

The state of the mind is many orders of magnitude worse.

Also, I'd quibble with "we don't know why". The word I'd use is how. We know why, perhaps not in detail (although we sort of know how, in even less detail.)

Comment author: aausch 28 December 2014 08:22:16PM 0 points [-]

i largely agree in context, but i think it's not an entirely accurate picture of reality.

there are definite, well known, documented methods for increasing available resources for the brain, as well as doing the equivalent of decompilation, debugging, etc... sure, the methods are a lot less reliable than what we have available for most simple computer programs.

also, once you get to debugging/adding resources to programming systems which even remotely approximate the complexity of the brain, though, that difference becomes much smaller than you'd expect. in theory you should be able to debug large, complex, computing systems - and figure out where to add which resource, or which portion to rewrite/replace; for most systems, though, i suspect the success rate is much lower than what we get for the brain.

try, for example, comparing success rates/timelines/etc... for psychotherapists helping broken brains rewrite themselves, vs. success rates for startups trying to correctly scale their computer systems without going bankrupt. and these rates are in the context of computer systems which are a lot less complex, in both implementation and function, than most brains. sure, the psychotherapy methods seem much more crude, and the rates are much lower than we'd like to admit them to be - but i wouldn't be surprised if they easily compete with success rates for fixing broken computer systems, if not outperform.

Comment author: ike 24 December 2014 02:39:35PM 7 points [-]

It is, of course, worrying in itself that there's an open question about whether an extortionist attack via malicious software on a huge company has been conducted by a nation-state, an organised crime group, or a bored teenager.

AlyssaRowan On Hacker News

Comment author: aausch 28 December 2014 07:52:57PM 4 points [-]

This whole incident is a perfect illustration of how technology is equalizing capability. In both the original attack against Sony, and this attack against North Korea, we can't tell the difference between a couple of hackers and a government.

Schneier on Security blog post

Comment author: aausch 04 December 2014 06:05:50PM 0 points [-]

“Never confuse honor with stupidity!” ― R.A. Salvatore, The Crystal Shard

Comment author: 27chaos 01 December 2014 08:30:07PM 54 points [-]

If the real radical finds that having long hair sets up psychological barriers to communication and organization, he cuts his hair.

Saul Alinsky, in his Rules for Radicals.

This one hit home for me. Got a haircut yesterday. :P

Comment author: aausch 04 December 2014 01:01:15AM 1 point [-]

it's fun to contemplate alternative methods for avoiding/removing these barriers

Comment author: aausch 02 December 2014 12:28:57AM *  0 points [-]

you quote feynman, then proceed to ignore the thing you quoted.

you're ignoring two options that fall right out of the quote:

  1. get people to pay you to play videogames. if you're any good, IT'S EASY. if it's not easy, maybe you're not that good.
  2. time box exploration for other things you might find interesting.
Comment author: Manfred 04 November 2014 02:54:10AM 35 points [-]

In fiction, villains start with some great scheme to do something awesome, and that immediately makes them fascinating to the reader. The hero - if you're doing this poorly - sits at home and just waits for the villain to do something awesome so they can respond. This is a problem. The solution is for your heroes to have a great and awesome scheme also, that just isn't evil.

Brandon Sanderson

Comment author: aausch 27 November 2014 12:25:10AM 0 points [-]

has anyone been keeping a reading list selecting exclusively for heroes with awesome schemes?

Comment author: aausch 16 November 2014 04:13:39PM 5 points [-]

[in the context of creatively solving a programming problem]

"You will be wrong. You're going to think of better ideas. ... The facts change. ... When the facts change, do not dig in. Do it over again. See if your answer is still valid in light of the new requirements, the new facts. And if it isn't, change your mind, and don't apologize."

-- Rich Hickey

(note that, in context, he tries to differentiate between reasoning with incomplete information, which you don't need to apologize for - just change your mind and move on - and genuine mistakes or errors)

Comment author: Benito 01 April 2014 07:35:28PM *  23 points [-]

Trying to actually understand what equations describe is something I'm always trying to do in school, but I find my teachers positively trained in the art of superficiality and dark-side teaching. Allow me to share two actual conversations with my Maths and Physics teachers from school.:

(Teacher derives an equation, then suddenly makes it into an iterative formula, with no explanation of why)

Me: Woah, why has it suddenly become an iterative formula? What's that got to do with anything?

Teacher: Well, do you agree with the equation when it's not an iterative formula?

Me: Yes.

Teacher: And how about if I make it an iterative formula?

Me: But why do you do that?

Friend: Oh, I see.

Me: Do you see why it works?

Friend: Yes. Well, no. But I see it gets the right answer.

Me: But sir, can you explain why it gets the right answer?

Teacher: Ooh Ben, you're asking one of your tough questions again.

(Physics class)

Me: Can you explain that sir?

Teacher: Look, Ben, sometimesnot understanding things is a good thing.

And yet to most people, I can't even vent the ridiculousness of a teacher actually saying this; they just think it's the norm!

Comment author: aausch 30 April 2014 05:14:54AM 1 point [-]

I haven't seen them mentioned in this thread, so thought I'd add them, since they're probably valid and worth thinking about:

  • the utility of a math understanding, combined with the skills required for doing things such as mathematical proofs (or having a deep understanding of physics) is low for most humans. much lower than rote memorization of some simple mathematical and algebraic rules. consider, especially, the level of education that most will attain, and that the amount of abstract math and physics exposure in that time is very small. teaching such things in average classrooms may on average be both inefficient and unfair to the majority of students. you're looking for knowledge and understanding in all the wrong places.

  • the vast majority of public education systems are, pragmatically speaking, tools purpose built and designed to produce model citizens, with intelligence and knowledge gains seen as beneficial but not necessary side effects. ie, as long as the kids are off the streets - if they're going to get good jobs as a side effect, that's a bonus. you're using the wrong tools, for the job (either use better tools, or misuse the tools you have to get the job you want done, right)

In response to Nonperson Predicates
Comment author: aausch 01 April 2014 03:42:56AM 0 points [-]

I'm curious whether there is a useful distinction between a non sentient and sentient modeller, here.

A sentient modeller would be able to "get away" with using sentient models, more easily than a non sentient modeller, correct?

View more: Prev | Next