Why is makeup considered cheating but surgery not?

Maybe wearing enough makeup to hide your face would fool an algorithm, but be conspicuous enough to get you noticed anyway.

This is not really the point though. Why is "uses Chomskian language" the criteria for whether it not it's okay to to change and slaughter a living being?

There is and remains a desire to explain exactly how it is that humans are different than other animals. Language or the language faculty has been touted by some as this thing.

I do not know anyone did this. I don't think biologist care about this.

So the image needs to be regenerated every time the post is read? Sounds wasteful to me.

If I remember correctly, at Google we would run a sampling profiler on some processes in prod to create these profiles, with some mechanism for additional manual overrides

On the blackboard he and his students wrote "Godel's Proof -- too important to be left to the mathematicians."

As a mathematician, I'd love if anyone here knew the context

Not a mathematician and it's been a number of years since I read GEB, but my rough takeaway of the incompleteness is self-referential systems are magical because they can create statements that can't be proven in that system. "This sentence is false" or "Can God create a burrito so hot He cannot eat it" and all that.

So if Wheeler is saying the universe comes out of quantum observation, then the connection seems to be a self-referential Strange Loop of consciousness/observation/participation along the lines of "we're just the universe observing itself"

Wouldn't that be a limitation of language rather than the ability to form concepts?

Again, not a mathematician so I'm likely butchering all this, but my layperson's understanding is Godel showed there's a kind of equivalence mapping between english language and mathematical symbolic language. It's all just information juggling (and you can use the equivalence to translate things you can prove with mathematics into the other trickier languages).

So if sub-matter quantum-woo is just information juggling, then it's the ability to have self-referentiality that makes for some interesting properties.

I don't know the context, but Claus Kiefer was on the Physics Frontiers podcast recently talking about this paper:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.07331

Gödel's undecidability theorems and the search for a theory of everything

"I investigate the question whether Gödel's undecidability theorems play a crucial role in the search for a unified theory of physics. I conclude that unless the structure of space-time is fundamentally discrete we can never decide whether a given theory is the final one or not. This is relevant for both canonical quantum gravity and string theory."

> His incompleteness theorems meant there can be no mathematical theory of everything, no unification of what’s provable and what’s true. What mathematicians can prove depends on their starting assumptions, not on any fundamental ground truth from which all answers spring[0].

So why leave it solely to the mathematicians.

[0] https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-godels-proof-works-202007...

On these, you can define some paradoxes in compiler (lisp specially) by redefining predicates (functions that return either true or false). On most cases, it either returns an error, or spawns a debugger.

I think it's simply that Godel's incompleteness theorem had strong, foundation-shaking implications outside the context of mathematics alone. Philosophy and science were greatly affected.

And the not asked often enough corollary: just because there exists a technical solution to a problem, does that mean it's the right solution?

I often see objections to technical solutions because they have the gall to actually solve a problem, but do so in a way that the objector doesn't want. If a problem is seen as a way to force a particular solution someone wants for other reasons, alternative solutions are threats.

And not necessarily the long term result anybody wants

Same happened with Walkmans or desktop computer, or mobile phones etc.

It's pretty normal that people want less of stuff when it's expensive, and more when it's cheap.

I mean I'm general, I'd rather buy fewer of the same things no matter if it's cheap or expensive if I didn't have to, and it would use less resources. Juicing someone's quarterly sales report is no good reason for me to buy a refrigerator, yet here we are.

Oh, you would already have other reasons to buy a fridge. They are really useful to keep things cool, and thus keep your food and drink from spoiling.

But (in our example) the high price of a fridge has so far kept you from buying one. Luckily, prices have recently been falling, so you can finally afford one.

You look forward to a new era of less spoilage and less food waste in your life; because you'd rather use less resources. (The electricity to be burned by the new fridge comes from your rooftop photovoltaic, of course.)

---

Does this make sense? You need have no regard for anyone's quarterly sales reports.

They call the dijkstra implementation slow but that's because they aren't using the full information it presents. Dijkstra gives shortest paths from one node to every other node in the graph, so you run it once and materialize it and now you have a full Kevin Bacon database

Eh? you have a full graph of one node to every other node. not shortest path between every pair (which I assume is what a full kevin bacon database would be).

Yes I meant specifically for Kevin Bacon. There are other all pairs shortest paths algorithms besides running Dijkstra N times

oh that's true, for some reason I was thinking path from A->Bacon. But dijkstra from Bacon->A is just as computational intensive and much more valuable to keep around.

But there's only one Kevin Bacon.

I mean there's also Erdos, but that's a different story.

Erdos-Bacon number is a join and sum ;)

I don't understand why constexpr allocated memory can't be freed at runtime. It's not so different from statically allocated memory being freed at runtime. Maybe it requires hooks into malloc so the compile time allocations can be known at the start of the run?

There may be other limitations as well, but I think of it as a question of where to store the object after compilation, but before runtime.

Clearly, it must be saved in the compiled artifact itself. We have an example of this already with string literals. This is part of the compiled artifact, and cannot be changed at runtime. So, in theory we could allow compile time allocations to be accessed at runtime, on the condition that they are never deallocated.

However, this would introduce a large complication. Objects may contain pointers to other objects, where string literals cannot contain pointers to other string literals. We don’t know where the artifact will be loaded into memory, so those pointers may not be valid. To support them, they would need to be updated as the artifact is being loaded.

There is precedent for this, as updating pointers when loading a library is one way to implement shared libraries. However, shared libraries only require this for externally-exposed symbols. Internal function calls can use relative jumps instead. For saving an object, which may contain pointers to itself, private objects would also need to have their pointers updated, which would add to the overhead. So, rather than requiring compilers to add what amounts to an additional dynamic-linking step, the standard forbids the runtime use of a compile time allocation altogether.

(At least, that’s my overall understanding, and I would be happy to be corrected on it if wrong.)

Travel by bus in London and your opinion may change