News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Chaos Makes the Multiverse Unnecessary by whatshisface on Thursday November 29, 2018 @09:08PM (#18566015)
Suppose you are studying a legacy codebase, one left to you with no documentation. You and your colleagues are by definition the only ones working on it, becuase you call anyone who is working on it a colleague. You are only 1/4th done by LOC, but it's not clear what fraction of the remaining lines are autogenerated getters and setters vs real code. Clearly anyone interested in the codebase should talk to your team.

I should also mention that the 1/4th number is comparable to a "by weight" estimate, but what physicists study is the laws of physics which are not measured in that way. Nobody on Earth knows how much physics there is left to discover or if that is even a well formed question.

Re:Chaos Makes the Multiverse Unnecessary by bodi on Thursday November 29, 2018 @09:50PM (#18566218)
I have a very healthy love for physics, and am simply attempting to draw your awareness to the complete subjectivity and awe of the universe.

To reallocate the code metaphor, at some point you step back from the monitor and realize you are certainly discovering how Photoshop was written while completely ignoring the images it creates, documenting the MP3 format, but ignoring the music, describing how the tree grows, while missing the forest.

<3

Re:Chaos Makes the Multiverse Unnecessary by Koshkin on Friday November 30, 2018 @12:04AM (#18566842)
> the complete subjectivity and awe of the universe

But it’s awe that is subjective, while the universe is completely objective.

Re:Chaos Makes the Multiverse Unnecessary by Koshkin on Thursday November 29, 2018 @11:59PM (#18566813)
> it’s not clear what fraction

But see https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2010/03/30/statistical-rule-o..., which has been discussed on HN not long ago.

Re:Chaos Makes the Multiverse Unnecessary by whatshisface on Friday November 30, 2018 @07:23AM (#18568568)
That rule tells you how likely you are to see one thing given N observations, but what we don't know is how many things there are.