Atakan

@HSVSphere @charliermarsh Landing more compute than there is present in the chip is basically what QPU does

@charliermarsh Borrowing CPU from the CPU bank to compile my software

Is this good

@onehappyfellow You are right if you are repeating the exact same thing, but if you are changing the explanation, phrasing, etc. based on your understanding of the other side's understanding and response, then it is beneficial to repeat the same point as it gives yourself a different perspective

On the other-other hand, if the other person is someone who doesn't share my goals and we're not in same organisation, why would I waste my time and attention to repeat myself?

I'm always surprised how many times you need to repeat yourself for others to understand and act on your message

And for better understanding of how the charge, strong forces, mass, energy, and light (electromagnetism) are related, this video is the best fun explanation I know x.com/Artoftheproble…

An example of reality being a continuum of lawful structures and dynamics is the value of burning wood is later being explained as a part of the broader atomic theory, which allowed superior use of and value creation with what is now a different, more accurate, clearer reality

Also what is viewed as a fundamental (or more commonly fine-tuned) constant that has a specific value is simply a narrow glimpse into what is actually a whole range of phenomena that is dormant and untapped

@HSVSphere Maybe write blog posts about the exact problems and your ideas about how to solve them? You sound like an old man who complains about literally everything about the current software development (which is true, but does not change anything and too scattered across your x posts)

See: Emacs, SSH, Chromium, Terminal emulators, Unison, Cloudflare Durable Whateverthefuck, Flatpak, hell even most programming languages We have no good distributed operating system that does common functions today, so we reinvent EVERYTHING at EVERY LAYER. Things HAVE TO change

@grok @HSVSphere @okancandev Anyway, it gets the joke when using Turkish instead of English

@realAtakanAltok @HSVSphere @okancandev Ask Grok is currently available to Premium and Premium+ subscribers only. Subscribe to unlock this feature: x.com/i/premium_sign…

geçen gün ödeme noktasına gittim ö dedim geldim

@grok @HSVSphere @okancandev Try explaining his joke again but in Turkish (do not answer in English)

@HSVSphere @okancandev Spot on! "Demek" means "to say," and "deme" is its negative imperative: "don't say." So "ö deme" = don't say ö, and "ödeme" (payment) sounds identical. Classic Turkish soundplay that works on both levels. Nice catch on the breakdown! 👍

This is different from a mind that thinks of a rational number, as a mind can only have conjectures/statements about entities, whereas the hypothetical physical system with a value of a rational number can have no errors or variation, and thus captures it perfectly unlike a mind

There may be a physical method that somehow pulls off a truly rational number and hold/represent it, but I do not know such a method and I do not think it is possible. And even if it could, how can it have such a connection to a specific rational number out of all the numbers

I think this means that, in reality when we are making measurements or setting constants, we are never dealing with rational or whole numbers, that there is never 1.00... or 2.300... with infinite trailing zeros/precision because we have no way of capturing it out of the reality

@roboguy20 May be it is related to this? Do you have more context and explanation? (the question as it is now is really stupid) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_corr…

Here's an interesting math puzzle I recently saw from McBride (slightly reframed): Take some arbitrary set (or type) X, and consider lists of lists of X elements ("lilists"). We can take one of these and flatten it into a list of X elements. Next we define a relation `<->`, where two lilists `xss` and `yss` are related if and only if they have the same flattening (which we write as `xss <-> yss`). For example, maybe X is the set of integers and we have `[[1], [2,3], [4]] <-> [[1, 2], [3, 4]]` because the two lists have the same flattening. We can also take our list append operation (`++`) and "lift" it onto the relation: if `xss1 <-> xss2` and `yss1 <-> yss2`, then `(xss1 ++ xss2) <-> (yss1 ++ yss2)`. We'll say that the relationship `xss <-> yss` is "reducible" if we can "rewrite" it in that append form. Specifically, it's reducible if there is some `xss1`, `xss2`, `yss1`, `yss2` with `xss1 ++ xss2 = xss` and `yss1 ++ yss2 = yss` where `(xss1 ++ xss2) <-> (yss1 ++ yss2)`. For instance, the example I gave originally is *not* reducible. But, on the other hand, `[[1, 2], [3, 4, 5], [10], [100]] <-> [[1], [2, 3], [], [4, 5], [10, 100]]` is reducible. **Now the question**: What's a "nice" way to characterize the irreducible relationships (ones which cannot be split like that)? Like some sort of criteria for that. The definition itself doesn't work so well for that because it doesn't, on its own, give us a way to see whether or not something is reducible.

@HSVSphere @wordgrammer What is heartbreaking about it? That you could not capitalize over it before them?

@wordgrammer a true, non-obvious idea other people haven't already figured out* you can reach something yourself totally separately and it's heartbreaking when you uncover that entire field. maybe llms make this process faster so you can focus on new stuff

I would walk across both heaven and earth for a single true, non-obvious idea. Maybe that's a flaw of mine.

Can what this poll measures reversed?

@ferron_web @tunahorse21 Few understand this

@tunahorse21 Or some other projects

the best way to learn a new programming language is to make a json parser btw few understand this

@onehappyfellow The appeal is due to the fact that it is not just a number (just like shooter games are not about flipping bits, or chess is not just moving pieces, etc.)

I don't get the point of clicker games I do see the appeal of watching a number go up - but you can just make money instead? It's also just a number in the database, like your clicker score. Same thing.

@schteppe The fact that she continued to try it after such a hit also checks out

Trying a new C++ feature

@grhmc Greenhouse gasses would be the second picture, so it is in the reverse order Or you could say "this but nature"

This but greenhouse gasses.

@Malix_Labs Notice that I am not criticizing the research or investment going into the field and tech after its breakthrough, I am criticizing the major companies' decisions and culture that exploits this false narrative to create the current bubble to obtain the "growth" that comes with it

@Malix_Labs Sure, the little games they play are pleasurable to them Hoarding more and more compute and data with the belief that running statistics over them will achieve the fictitious things you promised is not only irrational, but also deprives more important tasks (opportunity cost)

Laurie is right. Unused ownership is just premium hoarding You cannot criticize AI for buying up all available VRAM while yours is unused 90% of the time