williamjennings
williamjennings on Hacker News
It might give off less waste heat than your standard desktop PC; but that is not a valid comparison when you consider other, specialized types of circuitry.
Furthermore, the energetic cost of producing and purifying protein should be noted as expensive in the calculation of efficiency;
And the fact that actin filaments are not permanently stable in solution makes this system untenable.
The problem here is that Mochizuki uses too many German Nazi references.
Those people had no academic integrity whatsoever; and their works are exclusively stolen, through war crimes and the Holocaust.
After you do the right thing, and translate Mochizuki's nomenclature into French and Slavic; the proof is no longer valid, and the problem is negligible.
For the record, Oswald Teichmüller is a fraudulent Nazi war criminal who robbed Felix Hausdorff during the Holocaust.
The undeniable fact that Oswald Teichmüller is solely published in a journal of racial propaganda makes Mochizuki's choice of terminology questionable at the very least.
The fact that I am being suppressed for this demonstrates unambiguously that Mochizuki's proof is nothing more than media hype and puffery.
The risk factors are there because we do not do enough to care for each other as individuals in society. The statistics are the tool used for trading liabilities in the applied oncological epidemiology colloquially referred to as health insurance risk modeling.
"Since when is 'Bad Luck' anything other than a euphemism for the physiological stress which is symptomatic of poverty?"
Clever science journalists note that nearly everything outside of the organism can be generically labeled as the environment.
__As a reply to DanBC:__
>normal random mutation
This phrase does not mean anything in terms of molecular biology or genetics. It is equivalent to "Bad Luck", or "mutation triggered by something". The phrase is inappropriate because it equates point mutations, insertion mutations and deletion mutations.
As a rule, when thou wants to say the modifier "normal random"; thou should instead say "normally distributed", and then make sure that is worth mentioning in that field of science.
Search engines are the most common example, in general.
Even if there was such a machine, the number of people who could write code for it is less than or equal to ten.
"We have quantum information processing, but no computers as of yet."
And, that which we already have is so-darned-expensive; that it is less useful than classical computation unless you are building some exotic kind of sensor.
I would recommend Moore's Law as an approximate formula which is useful for guessing what year you will be able to run programs at home on your personal computer. These days, conservative estimates for the number of transistors on a chip should double every 2 years.
The fact that I am still in negative karma here discourages me from any further participation whatsoever. There are certain foods that go well with web browsing and heavy computer usage: in general you want soups and stews with a high fat content for their digestibility and neuronal bioavailability. My preference is green lentils with bone marrow, because the iron catechol acts as a cellular shield against ionizing radiation.
May you enjoy your browsing with a renewed sense of purpose!
Sometimes posting on internet forums reminds me too much of Blade Runner. Then, anonbanker chimed in and the scene started to feel more like this song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLtzqaygG0s
Your concerns are appreciated and inspiring.
Thank you ever so kindly.
You should ask questions more often. Remember that the burden of proof is generally on the accuser in this language.
>If you think it makes sense, and I'm misreading, then I'd challenge you to pick a paragraph, dig into each sentence, and try to explain to yourself what it means; and how the sum of the sentences in the paragraph communicates an idea.
Why have you not done that yet?
You keep getting close, but you only talk trash instead of asking questions.
>It doesn't. It's just a string of generated statements.
You have assumed that I am either multiple people, or a content generator. Since I am only one dude at a keyboard, you are seriously underestimating the amount of power used to write these messages. Either way, you are asserting that I am very, very efficient at writing.
>It's just a string of generated statements. If you haven't seen this kind of material before, then I'd encourage you to check out papers generated by SciGen: http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/rooter.pdf (generated nonsense intended to fool the reader - it was even accepted by a journal for publication!)
At this point it is clear to me that you do not have any notion of how these programs work; instead you have: a singular reference, reiterated insult, and ignorance of how those algorithms relate to the subject matter at hand.
>You will probably be able to identify this content for what it is after reading other (well-done) machine-generated content.
On the contrary, your content appears as such because of how often you repeat phrases which are low entropy and off-topic.
>I'm qualified to comment on the content.
I disagree, you would be able to ask questions in that case.
>The paragraphs do not make sense. You're being taken in by a troll.
Repeating yourself does not make your words more true.
>If anyone wants to seriously discuss this content, start by trying to understanding how "load balancing [...] may actually induces [sic] vulnerabilities to DDOS", and how that connects in any way to the topic which is cryptography.
You almost asked a question again. You should just rephrase that sentence and add the relevant punctuation mark, because you are admitting ignorance either way. It is very strange to me that you do not accept that cyberattacks and cryptography are in the same category as system administration.
>When is "destruction of the hardware" ever reversible?
In thermodynamics we have irreversible and reversible processes. Sometimes things can be fixed with solder, other times new parts are required. Vadim Markarov has made at least a little money from the difference.
>How will an Internet attack incite atomic decay? (That's ridiculous.)
I do not know of your background in ceramics engineering or particle physics, so I cannot teach you explicitly.
>The words and phrases are strung together in a way that communicates no cogent idea.
Your observation indicates that you are ignorant of the subject matter. It is only fair to ask questions when that happens.
>They're far enough away from making real sense that they can't actually be rebutted or discussed in a direct way. All you're left with being able to say is, "That doesn't make sense", "Those concepts have nothing to do with each other", "The ideas don't follow".
You should rewrite that using only the first person pronoun as a subject. It would only be factual in that case. It is malicious trolling to use the second person pronoun so as to accuse the arbitrary reader of being unable to understand. I use it to respond to the user Pyxl101 directly.
>Try to take the paper I linked above and, selecting any paragraph, attempt to assess the accuracy of its claims, discuss what it's saying, or rebut the claims.
Example: > Any unproven synthesis of introspective methodologies will clearly require that the well-known reliable algorithm for the investigation of randomized algorithms by Zheng is in Co-NP; our application is no different
I can rebut that at face value. The phrase "well-known" is completely subjective and therefore unsuitably counterfactual for a scientific publication. The abstract reference to "algorithms...of...algorithms" is a reducto ad absurdum fallacy.
>Does that look like obvious nonsense to you?
Yes, but I know how to explain why.
>It's written in a way to appear meaningful but it's not.
You do not have a firm rationale to say so unless you can point out the fallacy, like I have.
>It's just randomly generated content using statistical techniques to select words and phrases that appear nearby in a corpus of real content.
The phrases "randomly generated", and "statistical techniques", are not precise enough for criticism in this context. I use much, much less power than you are proposing; unless you want to count the greenhouse gases emitted by farms which produce my food.
>Nevertheless I'm sure you can pull some kind of meaning out of that and argue about it.
Then you could definitely pull some meaning out and ask a legitimate question so as to further the discussion.
>That's what we'd be doing by discussing this user's posts.
WE would be doing so if you were not simply repeating the same insults.
>I'm not trying to be mean.
Then you should recognize my humanity, if only because I have a better sense of humor than you.
>I thought the original posts were an interesting, clever performance with better generated material than I'd seen before.
That harkens back to my original joke about your interest in recycled content.
>That's misleading in the way that a magician is misleading.
Magicians are usually just good chemists who are fascinated by special effects in stagecraft. You picked the wrong subject, again, referring to your own sentence through a Freudian slip.
>It can be fun.
You admit to finding dehumanization fun. That is malicious trolling at best, and psychopathy at worst.
>The subsequent replies appearing to seriously defend the content (which by the way are not at all convincing)
I can tell that you are being persuaded from the co-occurence of your insults with direct references to the subject matter.
>and attack users who pointed out its nature, are something different.
I am not attacking your person, you began by rejecting my human nature; and I only respond by being flippant and forgiving. The difference is that you repeat insults while I encourage you to ask specific questions.
>I really don't want to contribute to trolling on HN by discussing this content further, but since you're accusing me of being unfairly dismissive
Then you should avoid the use of pejoratives.
>I will be glad to read and critique a short essay about how "load balancing [...] may actually induces [sic] vulnerabilities to DDOS [...] whether or not the maintenance occurs regularly" and how that relates to cryptography.
Instead of asking me for a written abstract, you should just ask a specific question. If you cannot realize how database programming, cyberattacks, and cryptography occur together; then I cannot realize you have any background in applying those things in the real world.
>All I can say now is that that claim doesn't make sense on its own, or the context of the paragraph, and has no apparent connection to the topic.
Do I need to write another Google search query for you?
>If the sentence was expanded into several paragraphs justifying its claims and elucidating the topic, then we'd actually be able to discuss it.
Maybe I will make that into an academic paper and submit it for discussion. Until then, you should understand that it is extremely rude to slander someone as a bot when you fail to understand their writing.
You should have recorded each edit. This is another Freudian slip about your own mean-spirited trolling.
I am using my sense of humor to prove my humanity, because your pejoratives are terribly mean-spirited trolling.
Good job! You almost asked a question.
This google search might help you in your quest to define the word 'maintenance':
This is an incomplete sentence. The correct phrase would be:
"I understand the topics to which the words are referring"
>The sentences seem like garbage that almost makes sense, but in the end doesn't.
This is a Freudian slip where you are actually talking about your own sentences. Since when does garbage make sense?
I hazard a guess that you are heavily invested in recycling content!
>Presumably phrases or sentence fragments written by real humans but strung together in a nonsense way.
This is another sentence fragment which is solely a predicate, lacking a subject. There is only one language in the world where that is valid grammar; and it is also the only one in which: being able to do the work of several humans- is an insult rather than a compliment.
A moronic RUSE uses derogatives subjectively and assumes everyone else must agree.
>It's clever though and sophisticated enough to make you doubt yourself for a moment.
If you could veritably speculate on what type of computation was ongoing, then you too could be clever and sophisticated.
Instead, you are simply being a dull sophist.
>I think it's both human and machine working together.
Correct! I am indeed using a computer, and so are you.
>This comment is too on topic to be random: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10058574 I'm almost enjoying it as a kind of puzzle.
If this is some kind of algorithmic puzzle, then I am technically a 'wizard'; and you can only progress by asking questions to inform your own ignorance.
>Pretty sure it's some kind of performance art or trolling, so I've flagged it.
Another grammatical error! If you cannot think of a question to ask, or a related topic to discuss, then you are most likely the troll (or performance artist).
>I'd argue that it's indecipherably dense and not appropriate for HN.
I can now argue that in fact that you are indecipherably dense and HN is not appropriate for VC funding.
Whilst a context-free grammar is used to generate sentences; the preferred output is typically the sequence of words with the lowest entropy. That has the effect of sounding extremely concise, idiomatically as: a man of few words. I veritably assure you that you are indeed in communication with a real, live human being who has written software for Natural Language Processing; so I attribute your confusion to that point, mostly.
>and I wonder if anyone more versed in quantum cryptography or any related fields of mathematics can make more sense of it than I can.
Here is where you are being offensive. If you become confused by words which you cannot fathom, then you need to admit your own ignorance and ask a question directly. Otherwise, as in this case, you are engaging in fallacious excommunication or at least rude duplicity!
>I could, of course, be unfairly interpreting the unusually simple [2] grammatical structures as being computer generated rather than as an artifact of not being a native English speaker.
Here is where you espouse two falsehoods: that my grammatical structures are in any way simple; or that native English speakers have any specific level of complexity in their language. It is easy to show how certain grammatical constructions are indicative of a person's native language; but those are usually grammatical errors such as: run-on sentences, misplaced plurals, or redundant hyphenation. There is no homogenous measure of complexity for the English spoken by people born in England, so that topical premise is entirely wrong.
>If that is the case, I do apologize and hope that I have not caused any offence.
If you feel the need to apologize in advance, then you have probably written something rude; and you should revise the message before sending it.
Let my wall of text be a lesson to you!
The interpretation is not the language. If a message consists of words, or is mapped thereof; then there is an exact number of bits necessary.
>If your bits are interpreted as either black or white, I need only 1 bit to send a message indicating a color, if your bits are ASCII strings I need more bits to send the same information..
It seems like you are not familiar with the definition of bits. It is the binary measure implicit to boolean algebra. Bits are not specifically ASCII strings, because the former is a subset of the latter's characters.
The manifestation of observational asymmetries absolutely must be equivocal to the asymmetry of manifest observation. Therefore, the format of an observation is manifest via the symmetry of a relation under a set of attributes. Thusly, the asymmetry of observations is a point measurably manifested by the difference in attributes. That allows for the derivation of: a union operation over the observations; an intersection operation over the asymmetries; and a manifest closure property. This is how one may define points of 'data' in the sense that is absolutely congruent with the terms database, big data, or data science.
Information Theory and Relational Algebra have some overlap, but they are not completely intertwined. The subjects of Abstract Algebra and Information Geometry are there at the intersection, but they still too terminologically distinct to be taught in tandem. The former subject is still best learned in French; whereas the latter subject is still best learned in Japanese. It is possible for one to teach themselves these subjects by machine translation, if they have a deep understanding for the grammar and history of each language. Deep learning of this sort is a kind of meditative activity, the type of which is only available to the most erudite thinkers.