It's always "research". I put that in quotes because any press like this isn't really "research", it's "fund-raising". It's the academic game of getting papers into the right publications, getting "street cred" by getting the right heavyweights as co-authors and to cite you, to become a "heavyweight" by doing the same thing and ultimately getting more grants to perpetuate the cycle.
Research can be interesting but so often none of it goes anywhere, it's just hype and there's a reproducibility crisis in academia. Look at the decades wasted on academic fraud and appeals to authority with Alzheimer's research [1].
Most of this media is the academic equivalent of "dcotors HATE This guy".
Do you think it’s logically sound to marry the ”no true Scotsman” to a strawman argument?
Or, to imply guilt by association by first constructing a false stereotype of research in one field, and then applying it onto an instance of research in another field?
> Commenting on the study in Science, he wrote: "Humans must learn from studying the group-based behaviour of other species, both in war and at peace, while remembering that their evolutionary past does not determine their future."
Why not? On what timescale? Rosy amorphous statements like this are borderline triggering for me these days-- why conclude a piece like this with some sort of unsubstantiated wishful thinking Disney ending? We see what we see, and it's been, oh what, a million years since chimps and humans diverged, and humans are melodramatic and vicious as ever. Why, on top of that, are we so hard into drinking our own Kool-Aid?
Agreed. I came to the conclusion years ago that we are going to keep having the same problems until we engineer our way out of them by altering our biology-- either genetically or with implanted augmentation devices (or both).
I have yet to see a convincing counter argument to this hypothesis.
It's not blocked By the UK, he's put a country filter on it
Like all the US sites that decided to block.the EU over gdpr because turning off tracking was too much effort
Work fine in Spain, so lets not jump on the all to typical EU-made-the-internet-suck bandwagon all too quickly. Seems this is a UK problem. But what do I know, I actually read the error message.
It's the author's problem with the UK (and the UK's Online Safety Act, which establishes requirements on hosts that can't be avoided by merely not being in the UK), rather than the UK's problem with the author.
But as much as I dislike the OSA: if you're not subject to UK law, why do you (website author) care what our government thinks of your website? It's not like they can do anything to you.
> Maybe 20 or 30 tiny sprites at a time, but they navigate the road network, queue behind each other at intersections, and generally look like a living city. Yes, it was a bit buggy because sometimes they would drive through each other, but it was good enough to just give some sense of life to the map. All that on a 25 MHz 386 CPU.
is that much of anything for a 25MHz CPU? We're talking about something cycling 25 million times per second, surely that's not such a big deal for a 386?
Thank you for writing effectively what I was curious about. "Simulating traffic" can mean a lot of things, I remember on the old SimCity they just "colored" each road-tile as red/yellow/green, (no doubt from a ternary flag) and the visuals just sort of blended between the states (car density.)
Being able to do millions of things each second should enable all sorts of behaviors, especially for a game of the era when you asked the OS to kindly step aside while you run your program.
> especially for a game of the era when you asked the OS to kindly step aside while you run your program.
totally! I was also wondering this. I know each operation takes some number of cycles, but there's still 25,000,000 of them happening per second, and there's no multi-tasking... :shrug: :)
I think it might be a bad thing. I'm no stranger to math or computer science, but even after staring at the front page for a minute I was ready to dismiss this as the ravings of a lunatic.
It's like they had the idea of marketing this like a software project, not realizing that most front pages of software projects are utter bunk as well. It introduces terminology and syntax with no motivation or explanation.
Even once trying to get into "Quick Start" and "Specification" I was still mystified as to what it is or why I should want to play with it, or care. I had to go to the link mentioned upthread to get any sense of what this was or how it worked.
I think it's just badly written.
That being said, what seems to be proposed is a structure and calculus that are an alternative to lambda-calculus. The structures, as you can probably guess from the picture, are binary trees, ostensibly unlabeled except that there is significance to the ordering of the children. The calculus appears to be rules about how trees can be "reduced", and there is where the analogy to lambda calculus comes in.
Hopefully someone who actually knows this stuff can see whether I managed to get all that right – because I promise you, none of that understanding came from the website.
If you don’t understand what it does, it’s not for you. But if you don’t understand what it does, get good.
TLDR; what happens when a very small piece of js can be run in the browser or any environment and offer a meta programming layer, that is stupid simple, but also useful because it offers Turing completeness with reflection? Also, it’s site explains what it does, but you have to center on what it is doing. “Minimal” 20 lines of rust is the entire calculus. If you don’t know what Turing complete means get out. Similarly with reflective. Modular, look at the demos.
You flunked out of putting in an effort before spouting your mouth do try and actually be useful before you respond, there are those of us actually paying attention.
This isn't a math thing[1], it's a theoretical computing model (ie instead of a Turing machine or lambda calculus, you can use this instead) that you might study as part of studying computation theory or other bits of theoretical computer science.
[1] or not pure maths anyway. It's applied maths like all computer science.
is theoretical computer science (turing machines and automata theory, lambda calculus, complexity theory, computability, devidability, etc) pure maths? or applied maths indeed?
tree calculus is theoretical computer science for sure.
and that, computer science, in its beginnings at least, until the 1950s or so, was a field of mathematics, like algebra, or analysis or logic. all of which have pure maths parts and applied maths parts, don't they?
long story short, I don't think theoretical computer science is "applied maths", it to the contrary can be deep in pure maths land.
So why don’t we all use LLMs with temperature 0? If we separate models (incl. parameters) into two classes, c1: temp=0, c2: temp>0, why is c2 so widely used vs c1? The nondeterminism must be viewed as a feature more than an anti-feature, making your point about temperature irrelevant (and pedantic) in practice.
reply