If you are interested in variants of minesweeper, this one is awesome:
https://magnushoff.com/articles/minesweeper/
(scroll to the bottom)
Readit NewsThe two dark splotches above the tree are the eyes. The nose is to the right of the lower splotch, below the higher splotch. The forehead to the left.
Ahah! I see it now, thanks.
For G) I'm seeing something akin to the Moon falling in The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask.
Basically a face staring at the tree from above.
Fascinating. Thanks for the clue. It's the most complete blank for me of all the tests. I looked up the reference image, but still cannot see it in figure 2G. I can't even guess at where the eyes/nose/mouth are in the clouds.
It seems that Aphantasia does not globally bin into two groups, since I don't fit in either.
By my rough count of Figure 2 tests, where Derek is at 0 to Loren at 6 (ignoring F), I have about 3.5 atypical responses.
My experience with Figure 2:
A) I can flip between cone and weird triangle, saw the cone first
B) I see it as if someone placed identical cat stickers on the drawing. I can intellectually understand the perspective, how the upper-right one is supposed to be bigger, but don't experience it that way.
C) I see that there is an implicit rectangle (to me it looks slightly wider than tall). But the color doesn't "spread" to the middle, it's just like 2A -- a boundary in the surrounding shapes implicitly extends into the empty space to form a rectangle shape.
D) It takes minimal, but non-zero effort to see the vase
E) It's trivial to flip between the two orientations of the cube
F) skipped
G) I don't understand what I'm looking for here. I see clouds, sky, and a silhouette with a tree. Is there a face in it somewhere? I can see the smiley face on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia
Sidebar: I absolutely adore Scott "I don't give a fuck anymore" Aaronson.
My personal aspirations to this kind of biting wit are futile and vain, but my admiration for it is even greater and some people can bring it off with style to spare, and ever since that uh, thing, Scott is just playing the ten minute guitar solo.
Into to Number Theory with periodicity and modular math might be stretching "nothing more than arithmetic" a bit, but fuck it, this is the best accessible discussion of Shor I've ever read and if there's any justice in the multiverse it will become the go-to link on the topic, which will mean that 10^500 laypeople will roll their eyes at the next 10^500 "quantum computers are the next step after digital computers" Aeon fluff pieces floating by.
Is this the "uh, thing"?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/the-blo...
carver commented on Taxes Are for the Little People pluralistic.net/2021/06/1... · Posted by u/rbanffy
My view is capital gains rates should be capped at some reasonable gain per year. So, for example, you'd pay the capital gains rate on the first 10% per year you earn on an investment. If you hold it 10 years, that would be scaled up appropriately (1.1 ^ 10). Then, once you make more than that, you'd pay regular income taxes.
That would avoid the issue of incentivizing gambling while not disincentivizing investment in the economy. Notably, it would also require founders of big tech companies to pay mostly income taxes, since their cost bases are so low (which I believe is appropriate).
Taxes should also probably be due on assets once they've been held for some period of time (say 5-10 years), whether they sell the assets or not. This would avoid the phenomenon where fantastically wealthy people borrow money against their stock holdings to avoid ever paying taxes, then use estate planning tricks to pass the money on to heirs.
I don't buy that the reversion to income tax should happen on high percentage gains if the absolute gains are low. I think the tax could be made even more progressive. Something like:
The first $500k of capital gains get current cap gains treatment. After that, all gains are taxed as regular additional income.
carver commented on Exporting image assets from ethereum smart contract with solidity github.com/dezmou/cryptog... · Posted by u/dezmou
The real answer is that you have to pay attention to the gas limit per block, which is pretty high now
On the Ethereum EVM it is 12,000,000 ether gwei. Most blocks are full. If you are willing to pay 12,000,000 ether gwei at competitive gas prices, it will get mined.
For an image application you can probably use as many blocks as you want to create and store a larger image.
As blocks are already full, this wont change anything, some people will get priced out for the time being or they pay higher gas price, miners get paid 12,000,000 ether gwei * gas price either way.
So gas prices right now are like 135 gwei.
12,000,000 ether gwei is 0.012 ether. 0.012 * 135 = 1.62 ether @ $1,704 per ether = $2760 cost if you want to fill up an entire block
Binance Smart Chain EVM has 30,000,000 binance gwei gas limit. And the binance token is much cheaper to begin with at the moment.
and there are other EVMs, you can find the EVM you want to use. Ethereum mainnet EVM has the highest number of nodes to store it though.
Its economical if you can sell it for a higher price. No different from any other art trade, artist can take the risk or a studio can front capital.
Based on context, you seem to be referring to gas when you say 12 million "ether gwei" (the block limit being 12 million gas, lately). But gas is its own unit, not measured in ether (or in wei, the smallest atomic unit of ether).
The reason the math still works is that 12 million gas priced at 1 gwei/gas would cost 12 million gwei, which is .012 ether. (Since one ether is defined as a billion billion wei) ... Maybe this was all what you meant, but it was hard for me to decipher.
carver commented on Metakovan, the mystery Beeple art buyer, and his NFT/DeFi scheme amycastor.com/2021/03/14/... · Posted by u/davidgerard
I feel like I'm saying "the emperor has no clothes", but doesn't anyone else think this NFT art thing is bullshit? Everything about it screams "scam": they're asking you to spend your real, hard-earned money on some digital "asset", pumped by celebrity influencers and hype entrepreneurs. Everyone is drawn to the big multi-million dollar figures of these high profile artists, figures that you will never see for your "assets", and do nothing but serve as a siren's call to everyone around. These high profile sales are marketing, nothing more. They are serving their purpose to kick start the mainstream adoption of this scam, because everyone thinks they can make a quick buck buying some digital signature.
What's more is the pseudo-intellectual justifications for it all. As soon as you bring up value, proponents put on their philosophy hat and ponder "what is value? money is just paper, maaaaan, we just believe it has value." Or we hear that owning a digital "asset" is actually the same thing as a physical "asset" because they're both unique things that can't be copied. It's all smoke and mirrors, and you know that when you have to hide behind vague philosophical assertions about "well nothing really has any value", then you have no actual argument supporting the value of the thing you're defending. It's a new illusion, pumped by hype, and they're trying to justify its existence by pointing to other illusions.
Thanks but count me out.
Yeah, digital-only NFTs will likely be a fad. I'll be interested again when the trend moves toward deeds. A title for a physical work could have staying power. Even potentially an iou from an artist for a one of a kind (physical) piece.
carver commented on Some Sessions from the Python Language Summit lwn.net/SubscriberLink/82... · Posted by u/lukastyrychtr
For instance, in traditional tests you may need two test cases for some behaviour. One is for usual inputs and one for some edge case.
With Hypothesis, you can combine those two tests into one, by letting Hypothesis generate the inputs for you. Hypothesis is pretty smart to find edge cases that you usually don't think of.
Overall, it reduce my time to write tests by at least half, maybe 75% even.
The caveats are: 1/ Tests may take visibly longer to run. 2/ If you have setup/teardown or fixtures that you want to repeat each generated input, you have to do this manually. This is imo the biggest weak point of Hypothesis right now.
> Hypothesis is pretty smart to find edge cases that you usually don't think of.
This is worth reemphasizing.
For certain kinds of hard problems, I've found it really valuable for building confidence in an implementation.
If you happen to have a reference implementation, with a small surface API, it can be a very fast way to write tests: tell hypothesis to input anything it wants and validate that both libraries produce the same result. It's not magic, you will probably still have to give hints about how to build interesting inputs, but still a very quick way to get a lot of coverage. (Also be sure to crank up the number of examples to build more confidence, 100 is often not enough to really explore an input space).
It was an odd format. The class outwardly presented itself as a seminar class where you just read and discuss AI papers. Several of the papers involved doing mean things to ferrets. But really it was a writing/communication class with Winston giving you life advice. I remember one of his teachings was how to build and maintain your network (email them ~twice a year). And also before a big lecture you can warm up your voice by making a barking noise. He also brought donuts to most every class. I miss you professor Winston.
But there were also great AI papers, and meta advice on reading them efficiently. (I don't remember any crimes against ferrets, but presumably the reading list changed over time)
I appreciated that class, and it's only grown on me over time. Another line that really stuck with me was something like "forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit" (Which I remembered as "Perhaps we will look back on even this with fondness") It's so easy to undervalue amazing things when they are happening to you. I was really convinced that I was appreciating it, even more than many around me. But I still look back and think I could have soaked it in, even more.