jasory
@jasory@programming.dev
- Comment on What are some common misconceptions about programming that you'd like to debunk? 9 months ago:
Nope. I only learned to use computers as an adult, and only learned programming incidentally as a tool for other work.
The truth is that it’s actually much faster to learn as an adult, you just have more momentum if you start as a child.
- Comment on What do we think of greenpeace activists? 10 months ago:
“Some real problems with long-term storage”
Political problems. Real, political problems; see Harry Reid’s opposition to Yucca. Fossil fuel and renewable manufacturing also have serious waste problems that are on a far greater scale than nuclear.
- Comment on What do we think of greenpeace activists? 10 months ago:
Nuclear is attractive because all the renewable options are climate dependent consequently highly variable. Unless you have some new form of renewable energy, this isn’t going to change.
- Comment on What do we think of greenpeace activists? 10 months ago:
They’re easy to shit on because they are stupid, being passionate and stupid are not a necessary combination.
- Comment on Any trick to read large Wikipedia "Comparison of..." tables? 10 months ago:
“I can’t tell how people add information to these things”
As a Wikipedian, it’s actually not that difficult. You typically start by row and just fill them all out. The much harder part is collecting the information initially, and verifying it (which as you can see in most comparisons isn’t actually done).
These aren’t even datasets that are large enough to warrant automation.
- Comment on Risks of CPR 10 months ago:
CCR is the primary method taught in cardiac care. E.g only compression. This is because the primary issue is preventing clots and making sure you get some blood flow to the tissues. Full oxygenation isn’t as important due to lower oxygen demand of an unconscious person.
- Comment on Risks of CPR 10 months ago:
External compression isn’t exactly the normal mechanism of blood circulation.
- Comment on Is it normal that I feel pretty bad for ignoring homeless people begging for money? 10 months ago:
Amoral means not morally relevant. Something that is morally neutral is not amoral, it’s morally neutral.
E.g it is morally neutral to pet a dog, it is amoral to like the colour blue.
Normally in moral philosophy one would avoid this confusion by classifying morally relevant actions/outcomes as “bad”,“neutral”, or “good”.
- Comment on Is it normal that I feel pretty bad for ignoring homeless people begging for money? 10 months ago:
Government programs are literally no better when it comes to administrative costs. In fact way worse in the vast majority of cases.
CEO’s are only a thing with very large charities on the order of the Red Cross, (or rich people money laundering charities). Your local shelter or food bank isn’t going to be having a high overhead, in fact it’s going to be much lower than the government agencies because of almost entirely free volunteer work. The point where the government is more efficient is due to the fact that welfare fraud is a crime, so people are naturally less inclined to lie to receive benefits.
- Comment on Is it normal that I feel pretty bad for ignoring homeless people begging for money? 10 months ago:
And none of this addresses whether or not giving money to panhandlers helps them.
I’ve lived on the street before, it sucks, but what the typical visibly homeless person does isn’t sustainable and doesn’t help them. It’s just a rut of wasteful and irrational behaviour, if you are panhandling you’re not engaging in productive behaviour that will result in long-term changes.
- Comment on What future AI applications are you most excited about? 10 months ago:
“AI applied to things like ‘against the computer’”
Coding an adversary in a game is generally very easy. If anything it’s oriented around making them beatable by humans rather than actually intelligent. (And that’s even ignoring lazy tricks like reading player moves).
- Comment on Scientists show how ‘doing your own research’ leads to believing conspiracies — This effect arises because of the quality of information churned out by Google’s search engine 10 months ago:
“no experts”
I never said that, I said that you are cherry-picking the handful of related people who agree with you, most of whom are not experts in anything relevant.
Clearly there are going to be a handful of subject matter experts that believe claims with extraordinarily weak evidence (see Nobel disease), the game of science is not played by fishing for individuals with degrees that support your beliefs. It’s by looking at the evidence, engaging in a fair amount of epistemic and abductive reasoning and arriving at the most useful conclusion. In the case of people like you who don’t have the skillset to do so, you can defer to the consensus of relevant experts. (Eyewitnesses are not subject matter experts, and I certainly wouldn’t cite my vision as an instrument in a paper).
“Some scientists and even Harvard”
You realise you are talking to a physicist right? All your appeal to crackpots and generic “find more information” statements aren’t going to convince me unless you rigorously explain why you think the data is better explained by theories that you can’t formulate (nobody seems to be able to, because the theory is just “it’s beyond our understanding”, the most epistemically worthless statement ever) versus very well known sensory and psychological phenomenon.
- Comment on Scientists show how ‘doing your own research’ leads to believing conspiracies — This effect arises because of the quality of information churned out by Google’s search engine 10 months ago:
“An overwhelming body of government documents”
Which you don’t understand.
“You’re a random internet stranger”
You’re a random internet stranger as well (actually neither of us are, both of us have public works that is easily findable, and let’s say mine are far more topically relevant). Why on earth are you supposed to treated credibly? Especially when you cite your expertise in QM to explain data, like every single crackpot.
“I am a skeptic after all”
How? If you were a skeptic you would have already been aware of my criticism that the data observed does not match any physical theories, AND that we have no reason to believe that these physical theories are wrong. You are confused by the fact that “diagnostics” merely shows that the software/equipment is working as designed not that it is interpreting the data correctly. (We also don’t know what “diagnostics” were performed, in actual physics we don’t say “we checked for errors” we give explicit descriptions of what errors we conjecture and how we accounted for to them, so saying “diagnostics were performed” is scientifically worthless).
I’ve already given several reasons to doubt the results: unreliability of eye witnesses, faulty interpretation of information, and failure to correspond with existing extremely well established theories. All of these are well-established facts and I gave an example of each one, some of which are so common they are open problems in remote sensing, and regularly exploited. The fact that you are so unfamiliar that you just deny them as being irrelevant, is entirely on you.
“Project Blue Book …”
Sure, there is something of interest in recording UAP, just like any other data. This does not produce any credible theories about them corresponding to the data. In fact essentially every report I’ve read can be summarised as “we can’t determine why we have this data”, that’s it.
“All of the experts”
You mean the people that agree with you and have decided are “all of the” experts?
So can you explain to me why “Q” is NOT the expert on internal politics, but the handful of organisations and witnesses are the experts even though you admit that their views aren’t mainstream in science and can’t refute any argument.
It’s quite hilarious that you complain about this brother, when you are engaging in the same faulty reasoning to defend a conspiracy theory that you want to believe.
On a similar note, you don’t seem to grant parapsychology the same level of credibility even though all the same arguments would lead to conclusions like telepathy actually being real.
- Comment on What Would You Like To See Improved in GNU/Linux? 10 months ago:
Second-hand Dell Latitude 5285. Not sure if it’s a hardware failure issue from age, or if kernels actually had problems supporting it.
It’s probably unrelated, but your comment reminded me of this since it’s the only time I’ve encountered it.
- Comment on Scientists discover the first new antibiotics in over 60 years using AI 10 months ago:
The first sentence was sarcasm. How does a company mass produce something that makes no money?
Financially illiterate people seem to be under the impression that rare treatments with high markup are the fiscal bedrock of pharmaceuticals when the reality is that smaller profit but mass produced medicines comprise far greater total income.
- Comment on Scientists show how ‘doing your own research’ leads to believing conspiracies — This effect arises because of the quality of information churned out by Google’s search engine 10 months ago:
Easy, get a physics degree. I already pointed out how the data was clearly incorrect. If UAP are really as credible as you claim (convincing military pilots and Congress critters) how come it doesn’t convince the actual subject matter experts? Physicists.
If this was even remotely plausible, you wouldn’t be having a handful of people looking into it, it would be a core focus of the field.
- Comment on Scientists show how ‘doing your own research’ leads to believing conspiracies — This effect arises because of the quality of information churned out by Google’s search engine 10 months ago:
“I would not consider my article legitimate research”
Then why did you link it as an example? Nobody cares about what style of essay you like to write, this was clearly you trying to flex.
I write actual research papers and I wouldn’t be so arrogant as to cite my own work (which actually does meet standards of research) as an example; you must just be really proud of that BS in psychology.
“Know more than our greatest pilots and military personnel”
Because they built the sensors and study atmospheric physics? You realise pilots, are pilots, not aeronautical or electrical engineers? Why on earth is their opinion magically more credible? Especially when the claim is completely contradictory to very well established physics. I fact I even gave a reason why their information is overwhelmingly likely to be faulty, due to atmospheric heating.
Before anyone tries to engage in explaining complex physical phenomenon, they should try to have some knowledge about it. I would personally recommend reading a textbook on radar engineering and another in atmospheric physics which pretty much explains nearly every single illusion and sensory error possible.
Since you clearly don’t have the intelligence to follow my recommendation, a simpler circumstance is investigating the second Gulf of Tonkin attack, where “the greatest pilots and military personnel” reported seeing attacking boats (including on sonar, a clearly infallible sensor) and bombed and torpedoed empty ocean. We know it was empty now, because the NVA records show that no ships were their.
This isn’t to denigrate the people involved, it’s simply an notable example that sensors can fail, data can be misinterpreted and people can perceive objects that aren’t there especially if they have been told something’s there beforehand.
FYI, fooling sensors into providing false data is a core part of military strategy, it’s the motivation behind ECM, low-altitude interdiction, etc.
If you even remotely understood the topic you would realise that even the definition of UAP means absolutely nothing. If you have 10s of thousands of hours of sensor data over decades of course you’re going to have inputs you can’t map to physical objects, the fact that you can’t conclusively identify the source of the input doesn’t mean that it’s a magical object, or even a real one.
There’s a reason why physicists and the military aren’t dedicating extraordinary amounts of time on these, because we all know it’s nothing.
- Comment on What Would You Like To See Improved in GNU/Linux? 10 months ago:
I actually have the same trackpad problem on a Windows 10 2-in-1. Seems it’s not unique to Linux.
- Comment on Scientists discover the first new antibiotics in over 60 years using AI 10 months ago:
Antibiotics one of the most prescribed and mass produced medicines in the world (short of possibly NSAIDs), doesn’t make any one money. There is absolutely no market incentive whatsoever.
You know it’s not necessary to lie about basic facts, if you don’t like capitalism there is much better points to criticise that don’t need to be fabricated.
- Comment on Scientists show how ‘doing your own research’ leads to believing conspiracies — This effect arises because of the quality of information churned out by Google’s search engine 10 months ago:
Weird that you would showcase a vacuous article as an example of “research”.
Have a bit too high of an opinion of yourself don’t you?
- Comment on Why would someone openly say that they oppose human rights? 10 months ago:
You realise that’s not an actual agreement to do anything right?
I’m not a total buffoon.
- Comment on Why would someone openly say that they oppose human rights? 10 months ago:
Never talked to a shroom-head before?
- Comment on Why would someone openly say that they oppose human rights? 10 months ago:
“there is no other precedent for supporting the life of another that can’t be transferred to another”
Yes, there is. Even a legal precedent, it’s called abandonment, you cannot legally abandon a dependent (especially if it leads to imminent death) without transferring actual custody to another responsible party (e.g not a murderer).
If you are in a circumstance where you cannot transfer the custody to another party, you cannot leave the dependent to die.
The rest of your statement is irrelevant garbage, but I think it’s important to refute that point.
- Comment on Why would someone openly say that they oppose human rights? 10 months ago:
That’s mostly just a bunch of different people using different definitions of “natural rights”.
Many people seem to think that natural rights are ones granted by nature, but in actual philosophy nobody cares about this. Clearly wild animals or inanimate objects don’t grant humans rights, it’s what basis humans consider to be the source of a right. A natural right would be a right granted to you by another human based on the nature of your existence. It is a special consideration towards you on the basis that you are a human.
And the “divine right of kings” origin story is ridiculous, the concept of natural rights was not invented to justify monarchy or God.
- Comment on Why would someone openly say that they oppose human rights? 10 months ago:
Well no. The problem with all the comments here is that they all presuppose that whatever the commenter likes is a human right.
Someone against abortion would not say “I oppose human rights” they would say “abortion is not a human right” and more than likely “abortion violates human rights”.
- Comment on Why would someone openly say that they oppose human rights? 10 months ago:
“Since human rights are international agreements”
No they’re not. Not in philosophy and not even in international law.
- Comment on 1 follower on GitHub = 1000 followers on other platforms 😅 11 months ago:
Some people (like myself and other scientists/mathematicians), write software for specific fields so if you follow them you find it out what work they are putting out, and issues they find in other software etc.
- Comment on FDA approves cure for sickle cell disease, the first treatment to use CRISPR 11 months ago:
“simply don’t have the means to obtain ID”
It can be “disproportionate” and still miniscule. The reality is that the group supposedly being suppressed already has an extremely low turn out rate (non-ID holders aren’t necessarily strongly socially let alone politically active). There have been multiple studies that show that this has very little effect.
“Voter Fraud” and “suppression” are an interesting case where both sides have been peddling unfounded conspiracies about each other.
- Comment on Verizon Gave Phone Data to Armed Stalker Who Posed as Cop Over Email 11 months ago:
No, because unlike you media companies are liable to be sued for false statements.
If corporations really are in control of media companies, then a competitor of Verizon could easily pressure/bribe them to exaggerate or falsify the accusation.
- Comment on Programming ideas 11 months ago:
You could write bindings to machine-prime . Hardly anything challenging for an actual programmer, but I’ll take the free labor if it is available.