This explains the naff "Captain Crunch" section of Neal Stephenson's "Cryptonomicon". Not that you can get it where I live; it would have made sense to do a "Weetabix" section with the same theme.
It's funny, I know exactly what passage you mean and even though it's been many years since I read Cryptonomicon it's one of two specific passages I vividly remember reading and enjoying. This is even though I've never had Captain Crunch in my life.
(The other passage was the one about one of the characters using a computer while in prison and setting up a profusion of xterms scrolling through random files because he suspected he was being spied on using van Eck phreaking.)
Such a great book. Two of the big stand-outs to me have always been the bit about his ex-girlfriend doing a whole research project about his beard, and the phrase "anally copulating shopping carts" pops into my head every time Im at the super market.
The document's initial example of diagonalization doesn't explain it properly. It shows how you can find a binary string that's not in the list; fine. But it's conveniently a list of 5 strings of length 5. It doesn't show how you'd find a new string of length 5 that's not in a list of 6 such strings, or 31 such strings.
I suspect the "conveniently" may drop out of some conversion of a real problem to an abstraction, but that's not explained.
> The document's initial example of diagonalization doesn't explain it properly.
> It shows how you can find a binary string that's not in the list; fine. But it's conveniently a list of 5 strings of length 5. It doesn't show how you'd find a new string of length 5 that's not in a list of 6 such strings
This is actually a mistake on your part. It's true that it's possible to find a string of length 5 that isn't already contained in a list of 6 such strings.
But it isn't possible to do that by using diagonalization. The concept of diagonalization is that you differ from the first string in the list at index 1, from the second string in the list at index 2, from the third at index 3, and so on. A list of six strings, to illustrate diagonalization, would require all of the strings to be six digits long.
No, that can't be the point, because Slow_Dog specifically states that the article should show how to find a binary string of length 5 that isn't contained in a list of six such strings:
> It shows how you can find a binary string that's not in the list; fine. But it's conveniently a list of 5 strings of length 5. It doesn't show how you'd find a new string of length 5 that's not in a list of 6 such strings, or 31 such strings.
The reason it's not showing that is that it's showing an example of diagonalization. Slow_Dog would apparently prefer that the article about diagonalization discuss some other technique than diagonalization.
I think the missing piece is just note that, for actual proof applications, the length of the individual "strings" and the total number of them is both (countable) infinity, so the size does match.
A single light is a 1x1 pixel matrix. And there is no need for electricity to be a requirement. So a single candle is a video display! Turns out we've had video games all along!
It's not even that. Plenty of everyday people "swanned around having a lovely time" too; or at least, didn't think the restrictions should apply to them. Sure, in some of the cases he cites there's rank hypocrisy involved that should be called out, and the burden of the restrictions impacted the poor and underpivilged relatively more harshly and some leeway can be given there. But to imply it was just the former is bollocks.
Yeah, although the stuff I saw first-hand around vaccine distribution in affluent/elite circles was mind blowing.
People found so many ways of gaming the system and getting the vaccine instead of the prioritized elderly/immune-compromised. I knew rich college kids with parents who had ownership stakes in elder care companies so they got the shot early, etc. etc., in SF many seemed to get hold of the special codes that were given to communities with low vaccine uptake, etc.
A few of my friends also got the vaccine much earlier than they should, but they aren't rich or well connected. They merely lied about having preexisting conditions.
To be fair, if you are living in SF and a commentator on HN (as I assume you are), then your friends are certainly among the 1% richest people in the world and likely top 5% in the US.
> But to imply it was just the former is bollocks.
It is epistemically unsound, as is calling it bollocks.
Because of this, herding sheep is easy, thus I am hyper-vigilant about identifying potential sheep herding maneuvers, of which there were many during the whole covid debacle.
Which again is a charge of hypocrisy by the most powerful, and is a legitimate charge, but doesn’t mean the swivel eyed loons have a point.
Non swivel eyed non loons have been pointing out the hypocrisy of the govt and those in charge for a long time. Even the Cummings example created outrage and if it wasn’t for the UK being led by probably the most unethical PM in its history, he would likely have gotten into far more trouble (or more likely wouldn’t have acted so blatantly illegally). Ironically, the reason Boris Johnson was PM was entirely due to Brexit, which the swivel eyed loons at least disproportionately, if not all of them, likely voted for.
Person A tells Persons B and C that they're under a grave threat if they step outside and must stay indoors. B and C then observe A strolling around outside without a care in the world. B says, "A is a hypocrite, and they must have been lying to me! I'm not going to follow their edicts" and resumes living life outside as normal. C says, "A is a hypocrite! They're behaving just like that degenerate B and refusing to take this deadly threat seriously!"
Who is the "swivel eyed loon" in this scenario again?
Venus has the smallest average distance from each point of the Earth's orbit to the nearest point on the other planet's orbit. I.e. whenever we're shown a diagram of the solar system, the "circle" that is Venus's orbit is closest (has the most similar size) to that of Earth's. I don't know the correct term for this measure.
The software seems on a par with the other automated fields tests I have regularly at hospital, and the output looks similar, showing approximately the same areas of degredation. Those automated tests are also approximate, so that's fine.
I do think there should be something to help you interpret what the results are. There's no indication what a "good" result should look like - that would be even response time across the field, and a even senstivity. Nor is there anything to say "you should go and see an eye specialist". If you get a result that looks like the patchwork I get, there should be something to let you know there could be something wrong with your eyes.
It's made clear from the context that "good" is "a good match". There's nothing wrong with most of those other men, but they're not going to be people that she will want to spend the rest of her life with.
Except no such member need exist. For example, there is no number that corresponds to the description "the smallest positive real number greater than 0".
Edit: note that even "the smallest positive rational number greater than 0" doesn't exist, even though the rationals are merely countably infinite.
This (no smallest positive element of Q) is sensible. But how can you have a procedure that requires making an infinite number of choices?[1] It's not an algorithm; they have to terminate.
I was only pointing out the problem with your argument not arguing that the AoC is necessary or intuitive.
Also, algorithms that don't terminate are still algorithms - especially if they keep emitting pieces of a solution, instead of producing the whole solution at the end.
For example, here is an algorithm for printing all of the natural numbers:
i <- 0
while true:
print(i)
i <- successor(i)
Finally, computability is not typically considered necessary for a mathematical construct to exist or be useful. Just like geometry sometimes studies shapes that can't be constructed in the physical world, other kinds of mathematics sometimes studies concepts that can't be computed (at least not given known models of computation).
One seeks to find a clear and beautiful double-negative-free rendition of the same sentence, written by thy own fair hand. Alas, one seeks in vain, as the critic fails this test of courage.
To wish all Readers of your abilities, were unreasonably to multiply the number of Scholars beyond the temper of these times. But unto this ill-judging age, we charitably desire a portion of your equity, judgement, candour, and ingenuity; wherein you are so rich, as not to lose by diffusion. And being a flourishing branch of that Noble Family, unto which we owe so much observance, you are not new set, but long rooted in such perfections; whereof having had so lasting confirmation in your worthy conversation, constant amity, and expression; and knowing you such a serious Student in the highest arcana’s of [Writing]; with much excuse we bring these low delights, and poor maniples to your Treasure. - Sir Thomas Browne
I'm in my mid 50's. The software group I'm part of has a spread of ages with people older than me all the way down to new graduates. I was new graduate once.
For the vast majority of programmers, programming just a regular job in companies that most people won't ever have heard of, in just the same way the majority of other jobs are.
