I'm not saying there aren't weird things going on, but this article sure does a lot of guilt-by-association. We're putting neoreactionaries, polyamorous rationalists, doomsday AI researchers and the Zizians in one big web.
As someone on the periphery looking in, it's because they make up a large web. Its an extended community that shares a lot of people between its many arms. There are also some shared values between all these people, even at the very extended edges. For example, they share a superiority complex. From my experience, most of these people believe that they see further or know more because they believe in certain things that are, on their face, unintuitive. I don't want to pass more judgement than to say, having members believe contradictory or outright falsehoods is a thing that cults do. I'm not saying this is a cult because I haven't seriously sat down and thought about it but that is reminiscent of something cults do.
Read HPMOR. Unlike what I thought it might be, the protagonist does not solve problems through pointing out logical fallacies or something. Harry Potter is a straight-up superhero who is infinitely smarter and more talented than anyone around him. It's not so much rationality as a narcissistic fantasy that goes on for hundreds (thousands?) of pages.
Even though I had been well-disposed to rationalism and read HPMOR to learn more, I could not take Yudkowsky seriously in any way after I gave up halfway through.
Had a similar experience trying to read that. You know you meet or have to work with people like that in your life and hopefully you use those experiences to remind yourself what kind of person you don't want to be.
For those of you not familiar with the acronym, "AGW" stands for Anthropogenic Global Warming.
(Though, Istodd, please correct me if there is another meaning of which I am not aware. I would be embarrassed to have impugned your credibility in error.)
I mean they did claim that pointing to science to support your position in an argument is tantamount to dogmatic faith, so I don’t think you need to worry about impugning what isn’t there
This is the last reply you get because you’re already convinced you’re smarter than I am. Who knows, maybe you are, but disbelieving scientists sounds pretty stupid to me.
Science is peer reviewed by field experts who constantly test and develop said expertise in order to defeat their own biases, and their work backed by data. Scientists openly invite criticism and deconstruction of their work. That, nominally, is the whole point of getting your work published.
That’s a far cry from the dogmatic acceptance of faith that you’re pretending it is
Look I started my comment saying I'm on periphery. If its guilt by association then I'm right there. My contention isn't the association, its the shared values that associate them to each other. Its their values I have an issue with.
This is how the internet works now. There are only two clubs, and if you refuse to be associated with either one then someone will helpfully come along and assign a group for you.
It's a big tent community, in part because these people spend so much time entertaining wild, speculative hypotheticals, which in the process allows some of these particularly toxic ideas to spread.
These seem like some fairly standard approaches for reducing memory usage. I can't help to think that the approach of joining several distinct list into a single one in some way undercuts Rust's safety guarantees.
If you previous had three distinct Vec objects, then Rust would guarantee that you can't index out of bounds. If you now put all those objects into a single Vec and rely on offsets, then you now open the door to indexing out of range of these sub-slices without any panics.
It's a minor point, and it doesn't really invalidate the optimization, but I'm surprised the article didn't mention it.
I think it’s more of a time vs code tradeoff, if done properly.
For example in the Vec case, you could theoretically build an alternative which encodes the “three sections” property internally, and ensures correctness at construction time for the pointers. Not as completely safe as a Vec, but you can still get similar benefits for the “business logic”.
But I agree, just having a custom structure that does not provide a safe wrapper around this would be sacrificing standard guarantees.
It's the exact thing Rust is made to protect against, on a more local scale. Every memory corruption bug is just an out-of-bounds index that wasn't protected against.
No. He's wrong that every memory error is out-of-bounds access (spatial memory safety). There's also use-after-free (temporal memory safety). Arguably type confusion too but that's a grey area.
You can make a wrapper type that abstracts the offset lookup logic with a safe interface. If it's a transparent struct then rust will compile it away into nothing but you still get the abstraction in your code.
Sure, and usually one of the ways Rust serves us is with safety guarantees.
Which isn’t to say this optimization is a bad idea, just to say it’s sort of a straw man to imply coding in Rust to take advantage of safety guarantees is “serving Rust”
I don't think Molyneux's issue ever was due to industry pressure. The guy made some great games back in the day, but as long as he has been in the spotlight he has been known for overpromising and underdelivering.
Don't get me wrong, a game like Fable was pretty good, but it was nowhere near what he was effectively selling back when it was known as Project Ego.
That Molyneux chose to make a mindless clicker as his first game with 22cans really can't be blamed on anything or anyone other than Peter himself.
reply