would be nice to have a book with a bunch of algos and pseudocode to implement into any language you see fit.
Isn't that pretty much what CLRS is for?
Readit NewsIGI-111 commented on I'm writing a book about algorithms and Lisp lisp-univ-etc.blogspot.co... · Posted by u/ska80
IGI-111 commented on Let’s all go back to Tumblr theoutline.com/post/5811/... · Posted by u/raleighm
IGI-111 commented on Google's AutoML: Cutting Through the Hype fast.ai/2018/07/23/auto-m... · Posted by u/redman25
ML = Machine Learning = Markup Language = confusion
Have some empathy for the loyal afficionados of the ML programming language.
Poor folks must live a constant emotional rollercoaster reading this site.
IGI-111 commented on The Backpage.com Case Is Testing the Limits of the First Amendment politico.com/magazine/sto... · Posted by u/danso
I wonder, why governments don't make getting sex easier.
Why isn't there any app where you can just pay to have guaranteed safe sex in a government audited establishments without any drama?
Right now, many play a game of courting a potential mate. Sometimes, feelings are hurt due to unpredictable nature of this game. It results in manipulation, lies and faking. It might make people who repeatedly fail to get any sex, a criminal.
When was the last time your date showed up without makeup? This reeks dishonesty, ambush and manipulation.
Efficiency of this market can cure many issues like sexual harassment, end scam market of pickup artist and many other crimes of passion.
Chasing other sex should be outlawed unless they've subscribed to the app and the application for sex goes through the government devised route.
If I've unsubscribed then no one should offer me drinks for the purpose of getting sex. This is good for everyone's sanity.
Why not just have an app and bet sums of money there, then everyone will be motivated to acquire more money instead of playing other games.
Blame is on society for making the act of paying for sex through sweat/blood a stigma.
Without sex we would have gone extinct by now and yet sex is not considered as the primary need of humans.
I know a lot tech workers who were promised sex in return of favours - training, jobs, finanical help using signals and later got sexual harassment charges when they successfully delivered.
Humans are seflish. They want something in return of something.
The most convincing argument against the commodification of sex is, in my opinion, that such intimacy holds a special enough place in human psychology that even an efficient sex market wouldn't make people happy.
I'm not sure if it's too linked with pair bonding to be its own thing, but that's certainly something to consider.
Still very much in the camp of legalization myself. If only because I can't fathom why the State gives itself the mandate to ban the exchange of this particular service in principle.
The workers didn't own the means of production in Venezuela either. Businesses there are 90% privately or publicly owned.
This is why I wouldn't blame it on socialism per se.
It was the stated goal of the socialist government however to get there. And I'd rather argue that this aim partly caused the outcome.
In fact I feel this is the main miscommunication that causes the "it wasn't real X" debate. People use the term X to refer both to the goal and the method of implementation.
I think it’s just American propaganda to blame this on socialism. You had a politician with a miltary background who knew nothing about oil destroy an oil company. Norway is fairly socialist - distributing the gains of oil amongst it’s people, and it’s doing quite well.
What you had in Russia was statism not socialism - power and wealth were concentrated in the communist party rather than shared with the people.
And there is that meme again, people fail to understand what socialism is. Social policies or redistribution don't make a socialist state.
Norway is a liberal democracy. The workers don't own the means of production there.
And the Soviet Union was indeed a socialist state. Statism and socialism aren't mutually exclusive, and being both is exactly the point of a dictatorship of the proletariat. That it didn't bring what it promised is just one more tired argument. Scotsmen are never true socialists for some reason.
All in all, Venezuela's woes aren't all to blame on socialism, but you can't really help but point out that it's a direct application of the principles layed out in The Road to Serfdom. The State grew by violating private property to redistribute it, scared off any outside investment, consolidating into an all-in policy on oil. And that investment had to be controlled, which means loyalty became more important than competence to recruit oil industry officials. And the rest was just one market fluctuation away.
IGI-111 commented on Civilization VI removes Red Shell ad-tracking software rockpapershotgun.com/2018... · Posted by u/smacktoward
Isn't this just beneficial for everyone? Why wouldn't it be okay?
Pretty sure spying on people who just want to play a video game without telling them or letting them opt out ahead of time is not only a bit immoral but also very much illegal, at least in Europe.
I doubt the form they have on their website where you have to know your id to opt out of the spying would hold up in court.
Brandolini's Law: "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
Queue long post about why such witty proverbs are overtly large generalizations that are never entirely true
This is so self referential it should be called Brandolini's paradox.
How will the media and society deal with these sorts of situations if decentralised alternatives to these social media sites take off? There won’t be any one place or person or company to blame, no? Did the media write about email being used negatively when it was taking off? (That’s an honest question, I’m too young and a cursory search didn’t turn up anything interesting).
We'd just be back to the time where the powers that be demonized the internet for what it was: something they couldn't control or sometimes even understand.
Email is a different beast, being private communication. But Usenet is exactly what you describe, a decentralized forum. And unsuprisingly it had both the best and the worst of humanity in there.
You get one guess as to which of those two got portrayed more in the media.
That naive Mom's Basement idealism coincides with the Atlas Shrugged years. Voters should just buy their own voting machines, and let the market decide!
So I suppose my stance that the benefits of online voting for direct democracy largely outweight the complexity cost of a sufficiently secure solution are equivalent to the older type of objectivists who realize that free market isn't perfect but that it does lead to better outcomes in most cases.
That we can't produce secure voting software is just a testament to how much we suck at software engineering and making safe computers in general, because cryptographically this is a solved problem.
Hell I'd argue that modern implementations like Estonia's are pretty close to an acceptable standard of trustlessness. But that's thanks to open standards and public ledgers. The closed source voting machine was never a good idea, and never will be.
Given the ancap vibe of blockchain in general this is all a bit ironic isn't it?