Yesterday was Pigeons As Hard Drives, today is Peacocks As Lasers.
I look forward to what tomorrow brings.
Readit Newskrukah commented on Peacock feathers can be lasers science.org/content/artic... · Posted by u/ohjeez
krukah commented on The new literalism plaguing today’s movies newyorker.com/culture/cri... · Posted by u/frogulis
krukah commented on Numbering should start at zero (1982) cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transc... · Posted by u/checkyoursudo
That's a very confused way of thinking about it IMO. I say:
* Start from 0 if you are indexing. I.e. you are identifying an item or its position.
* Start from 1 if you are counting. I.e. you are saying how many items there are.
It doesn't matter what it is. I don't know why you think pages in a book are somehow different to memory addresses.
You know what I like this much better...rule of thumb updated.
krukah commented on Numbering should start at zero (1982) cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transc... · Posted by u/checkyoursudo
Whenever I explain to someone when or why to use 0-indexing, I like to say:
Start from 0 if you are counting boundaries (fenceposts, memory addresses)
Start from 1 if you are counting spaces (pages in a book, ordinals)
Floors are a case where both make intuitive sense, which is maybe how we ended up with European vs American floor numbering.
krukah commented on Thought experiments that fray the fabric of space-time quantamagazine.org/the-th... · Posted by u/thcipriani
? It by definition has a radius of 1.
unit sphere != unit ball
The former is the boundary, the latter is the interior + boundary. One of the great arbitrary naming conventions of math.
I love the counter-intuition of high-dimensional spaces, seems to be making the rounds on my feeds these days.
One of the harder generalizations to develop intuition for is the fact that the measure of a d-sphere tends to 0 as d approaches infinity, even though for all d = 0, 1, 2, 3 that our meager brains can visualize, the opposite is true! Geometry goes crazy.
Another great WithoutBoats writeup. Admittedly, this is one of those corners of Rust that I'm glad is abstracted away and buried in async runtime internals.
That said, I'm curious if/when/why/how anyone uses Pin<T> outside of a custom Future implementation?
One thing I haven't seen anyone mention yet is that Nash equilibria do not actually exist when you move beyond heads-up into multi-way play. There's strong empirical evidence that solving abstracted games using MCCFR and using real-time depth-limited tree search dominates humans and outperforms all other AI strategies, but these results aren't theoretically sound, unlike in heads-up play.
I've actually been working slowly on https://github.com/krukah/robopoker, an open-source Rust implementation of Pluribus, the SOTA poker AI. What I've found interesting is the difference in how I approach actually playing poker versus how I approach building a solver. Playing the game naturally consists of reasoning about narratives and incorporating information like hand history, play style, live tells. Whereas solving the game is about evaluating tradeoffs between the guarantees of imperfect-information game theory and the constraints of Texas Hold'em, finding a balance between abstract and concrete reasoning.
Deleted Comment
``` const MyComponent = () => jsx!(<div></div>) ```
rather than a .tsx file.
That or wasm to be usable so I can just write my web apps in Rust
I too, eventually gave up on React <> WASM <> Rust but I was able to port all my existing React over into Leptos in a few hours.