timoth

@PabloPeniche It's futuristic and cool

Honest opinions pls. Do we like this format of anon with doxxed person on camera? Have you seen other formats work?

Code generation accelerates codebase aging. To use these tools correctly you basically need to be Claudes blood boy.

How did they think of the Gordian Knot before software engineering even existed

The minimum GDP necessary to destroy the world drops by ten percent every 18 months

The madonna-whore complex also applies to codebases. What you really want is a beautiful mid.

The g*rryslist thing is gore.

@FakeUncleNemo It would be great if native apps had cross platform UI. But I'm talking more about web, not electron. I wish I could safely try any native app instantly in one click and then walk away forever without needing to "uninstall". I wish native apps had a universal namespace.

@pogarithm It’s the most convenient, idk about greatest. That depends on your priorities. Purpose built software for different specific platforms will always work better than something generic like electron. You can strip out all the compatibility layers and their overhead.

Unfortunately the web is the greatest application platform of all time and it's not even close

The only thing worse than broken shitty code is shitty code that works

Maybe if anyone serious was willing to admit this, we could have had a better application platform by now. Instead we are stuck with only two options, application platforms from the 70s and webslop.

@David__Grogan @Jonathan_Blow Only in the same sense that it's impossible to argue against the existence of God

@pogarithm @Jonathan_Blow I'm not saying it's a well motivated belief, just that it's impossible to argue against. If there was a simulation, there would be no reason to believe it would operate under the same laws outside of the simulation, just as with simulations we ourselves make.

As someone who programs game ("simulation") engines, I have a long-term project where I want to explain why the "simulation hypothesis" is nonsense in like 5 different ways (while pointing toward what a sensical version would look like). So this Saturday at 10am Mountain Time, I will do a livestream that is the first in the series of Simulation Saturdays. To start with, I just want to lay out the framework in a not-organized, random-discussion kind of way, to just make an outline of what all the relevant topics would be. Then on later Saturdays we can go to various subtopics and talk about them. (Unlike #screenshotsaturday, the first Simulation Saturday will be at a time that is widely recognized as Saturday by many people, though I make no promises about subsequent Simulation Saturdays.)

@David__Grogan @Jonathan_Blow If you assume an outer universe can have its own laws of physics then yeah anything is possible. I could even prove that your grandmother is a bicycle.

@pogarithm @Jonathan_Blow also, maybe it's fine to simulate everything in a fine-grained manner in the meta universe? who's to say our notions of what constitutes vastness would compare to the potential actual vastness of any non-simulated outer universe?

@eaccswe @Jonathan_Blow Funny how easy proofs become once you're allowed to break laws of physics 😉

@Jonathan_Blow @pogarithm Yes and yes.

@Netanyahu_Nazi @Jonathan_Blow We know plenty about the limitations of computers, classical and quantum.

@fromdevoid @Jonathan_Blow It is falsifiable

@pogarithm @Jonathan_Blow The best argument against the simulation hypothesis has to be that it is not a falsifiable theory. And as such it is pure fiction.

@EmilMieilica @Jonathan_Blow Unfortunately that is not how proofs work

@pogarithm @Jonathan_Blow If you can imagine, then it is a proof it's possible. Only when you can't imagine, then there's still hope that the simulation hypothesis is false.

@fromdevoid @Jonathan_Blow It's not easy to imagine that. It's easy to imagine all sorts of reason why no system in any universe resembling our own could possibly compute 5 minutes of a rainforest.

The matter of scale isn't the best argument against it. For one, it's easy to imagine it being less and less of a problem with more advanced technology and computer architectures that we are yet to imagine. Remember our current computer architecture has pretty much been unchanged for the past 60 years. We are still very much in the stone age of computing. A second problem with that argument is that you don't need to simulate every aspect of the universe. You define rules and set your objects loose on the world, like a game of life. In addition, it's gaining a lot of track in the scientific community that the way our brains are less random than we think and that free-will is a bit of an illusion. What gives this illusion is the complexity of the internal operations to reach the outcome. But those operations could be themselves deterministic or close to it.

@__tpbpp @Jonathan_Blow You are describing God and it's not a new idea

@pogarithm @Jonathan_Blow If this were a simulation we would know nothing about existence outside of the simulation or what kind of resources are available or how they relate to how we use resources inside the simulation.