eternalban
Joined 15 years ago
Karma
6,518
Submissions
4,601
Member since
Dec 13
Recent submissions
Comment · 3 years ago
Thank you for comment. Knew little about the man himself.
"I experienced an invasion of my mind by a transcendentally rational mind, as if I had been insane all my life and suddenly I had become sane."
This has to be experienced. (It's like Jimmy Hendrix says.) I'm not sure I would compare it to puberty, or an invasion. Definitely a visitation, however. It seems the historical successful travellers on the path were in the main fortunate to be born into families of adepts. In many cases it was the father who initiated the son. For others, the cultural milieu typically seeded the necessary symbolic guide posts.
> Reality is that which, even when you downvote it, doesn't go away. ;)
You have perhaps forgotten your own initial encounters with such topics. It is a healthy response of the unprepared psyche to recoil from such content to protect itself; it can be dangerous, as you must know. The third rail is very much alive.
Comment · 3 years ago
> It works with all applications. It sees what you're seeing.
Does it also snitch on you to your boss? "Here is my assessment of the work habits of cs702 for this week."
Comment · 3 years ago
Look, you are welcome to your 'opinion' but the q remains (given that there are only 2 choices here) as how pipeling is a form of "synchronous" communication.
[p.s.]:
pipelining is a kind of async comm because unlike the general case of asynchrony, the response order mirrors the request order (which is not a requirement of the general case.)
Comment · 3 years ago
That was not a description. I merely appended the primary motivation for pipelining. We trade latency for throughput in pipelining.*
It's also not opinion. When pipelining, the communicating peers are not sychronizing their interactions; it occurs in an a-synchronous manner. Where does opinion get into the picture?
* since we typically end up packing a multiplicity of requests in a given MTU and further we can saturate the link (on both ends) since we are not blocking for a response before sending the next request. In synchronous protocols, the full bandwidth can't be utilized as there are cycles where the link (on respective sides) is idle.
As for description of pipelining, this question came up years ago in Redis's newsgroup and I posted the following (It starts sync and the final segment is 'pipelining' :)
Comment · 3 years ago
Pipelining is a kind of asynchronous communication that we employ to maximize throughput.
Comment · 3 years ago
> I didn't assert anything except for what was in the comment.
That seems to be the case. I take that assert back.
p.s. just checked out the wiki for Donald Hoffman. Thank you for the reference, TIL. Have to listen to that podcast, but have some idea what are the problematic open Qs that you mention. [I'm not apparently not allowed to vote on hn so take my +1 in spirit ..]
Comment · 3 years ago
But you're stuck in sort of meta duality yourself: you assert a distinction between reality and phenomena (such as consciousness). Did we actually -prove- that consciousness can not be a property of reality and is mere emergent phenomenon as YB and company claim? (note: consciousness =/= intelligence. Our little black boxes are at best approaching 'intelligence'.)
YB starts off with ~'we all agree mind is a product of the brain'. No, we do not all agree. Did we ever find the 'bottom' of matter? Has are search to find 'irreducible particle' succeeded? Is it not the case that as we threw more energy into our apparatus we found more elementary matter? Did we in fact finally arrive at a coherent unified model that fully explains material reality without "mathematical woo"?
So the honest position is that we have patchwork understanding of reality at various scales, and the reductionist program of Democritus et al has not been conclusively shown to be the ultimate truth. It seems that mind is bounded by the body but that 'boundary condition' depends on various reductionist assumptions about materiality.
Comment · 3 years ago
One can get a glimpse of the ever present One and its generations in modular mathematics. If we discard the insistence on numbers being simply a monotonically generated sequence (|, ||, |||, ..) which simply corresponds to counting, and instead assume a cyclical reality to Number, with the sequence of reduced residue sets of primorials illustrating the Generations of One, which is eternally present in each generation. Each is a 'measuring system', and measure engenders form. Reality is harmonic and knowing 'the beginning' is knowing 'the end'. (∅ +/- n)*
∅
2: 1 ∅
6: 1 - 3 - 5 ∅
30: 1 - - - - - 7 - - - 11 - 13 - - - 17 - 19 - - - 23 - - - - - 29 ∅
210: 1 ... 209 ∅
"Number rules the universe. Number is the ruler of forms and ideas, and the cause of gods and demons. Every man has been made by God in order to acquire knowledge and contemplate." -- attributed to Pythagoras
* simply fold the rrs by ∅/2.
Comment · 3 years ago
[I haven't watched the video - I come to HN to read .. but that said]
> I don't think the communication protocol between two processes, services, whatever has have the property of being synchronous or asynchronous.
This is news to those of us who have implemented or designed communication protocols between processes.
> It is more about how each side of the communication handles it internally.
You are confusing processing of information obtained via communication with the pattern of communication. A synchronous protocol is a lock-step exchange of data/meta-data between two communicating processes. You can have processes communicating via a synchronous protocol that handle the processing in an asynchronous manner. An asynchronous protocol does not require exchange of messages to be lock-step
A: HELO w/ MY CREDS <blocks>
B: HELO - ACCEPT CREDS
A: GET 'foo' <blocks>
B: HERE is 'foo' <data>
[A: queue foo data for async processing by an internal comp A']
A: GET 'bar' <blocks>
[A': processed 'foo']
B: HERE is 'bar' <data>
[A: queue bar data for async processing by an internal comp A']
...
[A': processed 'bar']
A: HELO w/ MY CREDS <blocks>
B: HELO - ACCEPT CREDS
A: GET 'foo' <doesn't block>
A: GET 'bar' <doesn't block>
B: HERE is 'foo' <data> # B may even return 'bar' first in some cases
[A: queue foo data for processing ...]
A: GET 'foobar' <doesn't block>
B: HERE is 'bar' <data>
[A: queue bar data for processing]
...
B: HERE is 'foobar' <data>
...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344006359/figure/fi...
Comment · 3 years ago
Filed under More Breathless Articles Will Be Written
Comment · 3 years ago
You are correct and doing fine.
The authority to check with is Kenneth Frampton and his Modern Architecture. He categorized Safdie as postmodern. I just checked and apparently my copy (some early 90s edition) is awol from the shelf and no pdfs to be found on the net. However found this article:
Grep for safdie:
https://www.stirworld.com/think-columns-the-fifth-edition-of...
He was a great teacher, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Frampton
~
Also not "brutalist" (Safdie meets a straight edge on a hill):
Rokko Housing I, II, III, Kobe, Tadao Ando https://arquitecturaviva.com/works/edificios-rokko-i-ii-iii-...
https://www.pritzkerprize.com/sites/default/files/styles/max...
Ando used to make concrete sing. Just superb. He also had a dog he named Corbu (its true!) - iirc he claimed (in a lecture when visiting our school) that he followed Corbusier but to me he generously lifted from Lou Kahn.
https://wrightwood659.org/exhibitions/ando-and-le-corbusier-...
Comment · 3 years ago
I think the social concerns around attributing personhood to LLMs transcend ideological concerns.
thanks for all the fish