Re: [FRIAM] on stupidity
Steven writes: < I tend to agree with your intuition that something that seems egregiously "stupid" might well simply be registered in a different basis space... or more aptly "a different value system". > Indeed, like a provincial value system. One that optimizes for local interests in ignorance or indifference to interests of anyone else. Even if the magnitude of their eigenvalue is tiny by comparison. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
Re: [FRIAM] but it feels good
Bugs are often introduced during the maintenance of code. Here's a trivial
example. In code that isn't factored, it is common to see large conditionals
like this:
If (so-and-so) {
A few hundred lines of stuff, A
Something unique, X
More stuff, B
} else {
A few hundred lines of stuff almost like the ones above, A'
Something else unique, Y
More stuff B'
}
Now random developer looks for X, e.g. a diagnostic message they saw in their
JIRA tasking, and fools around with the code above it. Unfortunately their fix
ignored the other common mode of use that involves Y that needs to do the same
things. The developer gets the behavior they want for their test case, and
goes back to look at Instagram. In fact A should equal A' and B should
equal B'. The fact that the code structure even allows this edit (as opposed
to, say, being a high-order function) is careless, even though it may "build
trust" or "foster team spirit" to tolerate it.
I don't think it is really that common that people doing refactoring change
code of a colleague written as above. Usually when these changes happen it is
because the code has been abandoned and no one even remembers it is there.
It's like cleaning up garbage blowing around in the park. Sure there will be
people that will be alarmed just with the *idea* that the commons is changing.
Argue with them and make them tired, or disable their commit messages until
the deed is done. It's not like they'll ever look.
Marcus
On 2/14/20, 8:16 PM, "Friam on behalf of glen e p ropella"
wrote:
https://changelog.com/posts/why-do-so-many-developers-get-dry-wrong
> Once you eeked out enough XP to reach Level 2, condensing that copy pasta
down felt amazing. Suddenly your code looked more impressive. Efficient! Clean!
Simple! This is like the lowest common form of refactoring. But it feels good…
--
glen ep ropella 971-599-3737
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
Re: [FRIAM] on stupidity
glen - I tend to agree with your intuition that something that seems egregiously "stupid" might well simply be registered in a different basis space... or more aptly "a different value system". It is easy/convenient enough to just "discount it" and move on, but if the subject is important enough, it is probably worth watching/looking carefully to see if there is something I'm missing about the (un)shared assumptions/axioms/values. On the other hand I was raised to respect Rodeo Clowns on the basis that "you have to be really good to be that bad!" Which roughly describes Tricksters and Trolls who can concoct a very specific "clashing" narrative to your own. My own "stupidity" in the sense of "demonstrated ignorance" seems to come from operating not so much in a *different* basis space, but in a *subdimensional* one... which leaves my expressions limited in nuance relative to the conversation/context at hand. - steve On 2/14/20 9:24 PM, glen e p ropella wrote: > Hm. But you can't deny that we're all stupid at some time, in some context, > for some isolated decision. The point is that a slight deviation is "yet > another episode of my stupidity", whereas a large deviation implies a > different basis ... like the garbage poetry I wrote as a kid. It's so stupid, > I can't come to any conclusion BUT that those words came from someone else. > > On February 14, 2020 7:54:33 PM PST, Marcus Daniels > wrote: >> A fundamental assumption is that one shouldn't be disgusting. Being >> slightly stupid and disgusting isn't redeeming. The meritocracy thing >> is a straw man. > -- > glen ep ropella 971-599-3737 > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
Re: [FRIAM] on stupidity
Hm. But you can't deny that we're all stupid at some time, in some context, for some isolated decision. The point is that a slight deviation is "yet another episode of my stupidity", whereas a large deviation implies a different basis ... like the garbage poetry I wrote as a kid. It's so stupid, I can't come to any conclusion BUT that those words came from someone else. On February 14, 2020 7:54:33 PM PST, Marcus Daniels wrote: >A fundamental assumption is that one shouldn't be disgusting. Being >slightly stupid and disgusting isn't redeeming. The meritocracy thing >is a straw man. -- glen ep ropella 971-599-3737 FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
[FRIAM] but it feels good
https://changelog.com/posts/why-do-so-many-developers-get-dry-wrong > Once you eeked out enough XP to reach Level 2, condensing that copy pasta > down felt amazing. Suddenly your code looked more impressive. Efficient! > Clean! Simple! This is like the lowest common form of refactoring. But it > feels good… -- glen ep ropella 971-599-3737 FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
Re: [FRIAM] on stupidity
A fundamental assumption is that one shouldn't be disgusting. Being slightly stupid and disgusting isn't redeeming. The meritocracy thing is a straw man. On 2/14/20, 7:02 PM, "Friam on behalf of glen" wrote: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/02/14/addendum-to-targeting-meritocracy/ > if people seem slightly stupid, they’re probably just stupid. But if they seem colossally and inexplicably stupid, you probably differ in some kind of basic assumption so fundamental that you didn’t realize you were assuming it, and should poke at the issue until you figure it out. -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
[FRIAM] on stupidity
https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/02/14/addendum-to-targeting-meritocracy/ > if people seem slightly stupid, they’re probably just stupid. But if they > seem colossally and inexplicably stupid, you probably differ in some kind of > basic assumption so fundamental that you didn’t realize you were assuming it, > and should poke at the issue until you figure it out. -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
Re: [FRIAM] friam Winter POTLUCK
On 14 Feb 2020, at 15:19, Frank Wimberly wrote: Aleph 0, Aleph 1, Aleph 2,... etc. are all infinite cardinals. The continuum hypothesis is that there are no cardinals between consecutive members of that sequence. I will translate your witticisms for the unintiated, Barry. Did I get it right? Frank On Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 1:14 PM Barry MacKichan wrote: There are also my friends from grad school, Alf N, and Continuum. —Barry On 13 Feb 2020, at 19:01, Gary Schiltz wrote: Cardinal? The only cardinal I know has red feathers and a conical beak made for cracking seeds. And by the way, it's Ecuador, not Peru. In any case, in honor of Cardinal Standish, and as someone who lives two miles south of the equator, I will break out in song: "I come from the land down... er... well slightly, down under..." FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
Re: [FRIAM] friam Winter POTLUCK
Thanks, Frank, I was wondering. Insufferable math weenies :-) On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 3:20 PM Frank Wimberly wrote: > Aleph 0, Aleph 1, Aleph 2,... etc. are all infinite cardinals. The > continuum hypothesis is that there are no cardinals between consecutive > members of that sequence. > > I will translate your witticisms for the unintiated, Barry. Did I get it > right? > > Frank > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 1:14 PM Barry MacKichan < > barry.mackic...@mackichan.com> wrote: > >> There are also my friends from grad school, Alf N, and Continuum. >> >> —Barry >> >> On 13 Feb 2020, at 19:01, Gary Schiltz wrote: >> >> Cardinal? The only cardinal I know has red feathers and a conical beak >> made >> for cracking seeds. And by the way, it's Ecuador, not Peru. In any case, >> in >> honor of Cardinal Standish, and as someone who lives two miles south of >> the >> equator, I will break out in song: "I come from the land down... er... >> well >> slightly, down under..." >> >> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
Re: [FRIAM] friam Winter POTLUCK
Aleph 0, Aleph 1, Aleph 2,... etc. are all infinite cardinals. The continuum hypothesis is that there are no cardinals between consecutive members of that sequence. I will translate your witticisms for the unintiated, Barry. Did I get it right? Frank On Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 1:14 PM Barry MacKichan wrote: > There are also my friends from grad school, Alf N, and Continuum. > > —Barry > > On 13 Feb 2020, at 19:01, Gary Schiltz wrote: > > Cardinal? The only cardinal I know has red feathers and a conical beak made > for cracking seeds. And by the way, it's Ecuador, not Peru. In any case, in > honor of Cardinal Standish, and as someone who lives two miles south of the > equator, I will break out in song: "I come from the land down... er... well > slightly, down under..." > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
Re: [FRIAM] friam Winter POTLUCK
There are also my friends from grad school, Alf N, and Continuum. —Barry On 13 Feb 2020, at 19:01, Gary Schiltz wrote: > Cardinal? The only cardinal I know has red feathers and a conical beak made > for cracking seeds. And by the way, it's Ecuador, not Peru. In any case, in > honor of Cardinal Standish, and as someone who lives two miles south of the > equator, I will break out in song: "I come from the land down... er... well > slightly, down under..." > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
Re: [FRIAM] Celeste Kidd - How to Know
W. F. Donkin wrote: "When several hypotheses are presented to our mind which we believe to be mutually exclusive and exhaustive, but about which we know nothing further, we distribute our belief equally among them This being admitted as an account of the way in which we actually do distribute our belief in simple cases, the whole of the subsequent theory follows as a deduction of the way in which we must distribute it in complex cases if we would be consistent." In another context, Eric mentioned the concept of branching structures. In mixed integer branch & cut solvers, the decisions concerning how to repeatedly separate a problem into sub-spaces is one of the most crucial to get right. There's a significant literature on it. Some involve lookahead, others use information theoretic techniques, others do aggregation of variables into simpler forms. Which one works the best, as far as I can tell, is problem dependent. It is some analogue to No Free Lunch, I suspect. It is not unreasonable for a solver to compete them, given the compute resources, however the conclusion from that competition should not be that one policy is better than the other. Also it reminds me of Glens' advocacy of parallax. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
Re: [FRIAM] Celeste Kidd - How to Know
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 8:59 AM Roger Critchlow wrote: > > >> When several hypotheses are presented to our mind which we believe to be >> mutually exclusive and exhaustive, but about which we know nothing further, >> we distribute our belief equally among them This being admitted as an >> account of the way in which we actually do distribute our belief in simple >> cases, the whole of the subsequent theory follows as a deduction of the way >> in which we must distribute it in complex cases if we would be consistent. > > > >> -- W. F. Donkits. > > > The epigram by W. F. Donkits in this paper is apparently the only place > his name appears on the internet. > The proper attribution is W. F. Donkin, Prof of Astronomy, Oxford May 1851 Article XLVII Phil. Mag. S. $. Vol. 1. No.5. May 1851. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Fishburn_Donkin FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
Re: [FRIAM] Celeste Kidd - How to Know
Following up Daston's paper on the origins of objective and subjective probability, one of the files that ended up in my Downloads folder was http://www.fitelson.org/probability/ramsey.pdf, a collection of three essays by Frank P. Ramsey on probability. HackerNews came up with a link to Cheryl Misak's biography of Frank Ramsey this morning, https://hnn.us/article/174250. Ramsey's first essay commences with these epigrams: To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, > while to say of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not is > true. > -- Aristotle. > When several hypotheses are presented to our mind which we believe to be > mutually exclusive and exhaustive, but about which we know nothing further, > we distribute our belief equally among them This being admitted as an > account of the way in which we actually do distribute our belief in simple > cases, the whole of the subsequent theory follows as a deduction of the way > in which we must distribute it in complex cases if we would be consistent. > -- W. F. Donkits. > The object of reasoning is to find out, from the consideration of what we > already know, something else which we do not know. Consequently, reasoning > is good if it be such as to give a true conclusion from true premises, and > not otherwise. > -- C. S. Peirce. > Truth can never be told so as to be understood, and not be believed. > -- W. Blake. The epigram by W. F. Donkits in this paper is apparently the only place his name appears on the internet. What follows to the end of the section is almost entirely based on the > writings of C. S. Peirce. [Especially his > "Illustrations of the Logic of Science", Popular Science Monthly, 1877 and > 1878, reprinted in Chance Love and Logic > (1923).] Back to Popular Science again! -- rec -- On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 11:43 AM Roger Critchlow wrote: > I thought she was arguing that very mechanisms that google, facebook, > twitter, etc. are using right now to engage people's interest online are > already engendering and entrenching all sorts of weird beliefs. 6-9 > minutes of activated charcoal advocacy videos and you're probably certain > that black smoothies are okay, maybe even good for you. There are no > neutral platforms, because the order in which content is presented is never > neutral, and it is especially biased if its goal is to keep you clicking. > Whether this allows focused election manipulation seems dubious, but it > does allow for thousands of bizarre theories to be injected into the public > consciousness at low cost, and some of them even make money. Hey, some of > them, bizarre as they are, might turn out to be correct, not that the > platforms have any interest in that aspect, because that wouldn't be > neutral. > > Andrew Gelman linked this paper, > https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/81961261.pdf, earlier this week, too. > It's about the genesis of the distinction(s) between objective and > subjective probabilities in the 19th century. Several writers started > distinguishing objective and subjective probabilities writing in German, > French, and English at about the same time. True to Kidd's scatterplots of > concept variability, none of them appear to be making the same distinction > even when they claim to be agreeing. Part of the problem may have been > that objective and subjective had just barely adopted the meanings which we > more or less use to this day. Prior to this time: > >> The objective in this context referred to the objects of thought, and the >> subjective to objects in themselves [35, A.2.a]. This (to modern ears) >> inverted sense survived well into the 18th century; witness, for example, >> the entry for "Objective/objectivus" in the 1728 edition of Chamber's >> Dictionary: "Hence a thing is said to exist OBJECTIVELY, objectivè, when it >> exists no otherwise than in being known; or in being an Object of the Mind" >> [6, 649]. The meanings of the terms had, however, already branched and >> crisscrossed in the 17th century in both Latin and in various vernaculars, >> although "objective" still generally modified thoughts rather than external >> objects. A famous example can be found in the Meditationes (1641) of René >> Descartes, in which he contrasted the "objective reality" of an >> idea--whether it represents its cause by perfection and/or content--with >> its "formal reality"--whether it corresponds to anything external to the >> mind [15, 40-42; 8, 136-137; 33] > > Over the 18th century we -- or at least some of us -- swapped Platonic > objects for Empirical objects. The dictionaries attribute the change to > Kant, but the author notes that the new concept was sort of a > Cartesian-Kantian-wild-type hybrid, not exactly anything that anyone had > exactly proposed. > > -- rec -- > > On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 10:23 AM Steven A Smith wrote: > >> REC - >> >> Good find! >> >> I am not closely following the development and results
