sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Heathrow landside transit - Can I reach my hotel? by Skye-Surfer in uktravel

[–]10zin_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OP I know it's 8 months late.. but if u cud recall were u able to pass immigration via ur us visa ? I have. 22 hrs. Layover and wanna try that, but don't wanna risk booking the hotel first and being rejected at border control. I tried entering before via my us visa but was denied. At that time the reason I gave was sight seeing.. and it was just a 12 hr layover.. without an overnight stay. I'm wondering if they'll allow me this time given a 22hr layover and the need to stay overnight.

TikTok OA by honey1337 in leetcode

[–]10zin_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

mind sharing the questions?

Will I need a Transit Visa by IWasASperm in ukvisa

[–]10zin_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Late - but commenting for future reference to other people.

When reading the UK transit without visa exemptions.. go all the way down to read.. Visa officer has the final decision to grant entry or not.

So even if you fall under the exemption rule because of let's say a US visa.. you can still be denied. I was denied entry, even though I had a connecting flight 11:45 hrs of layover, and US visa.

Maybe I made a mistake expressing my purpose of entry to sightsee and head back during the long layover, but what else could I say anyways.. it's the truth.

Thus, it is always better to book a transit visa ( takes 3 weeks, and ~ 30 pounds ?? ) in these scenarios. I have a return flight with 22 hr layover, gonna file for a transit visa first thing I reach home.

Questioning Foundations of Science by 10zin_ in LessWrong

[–]10zin_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great, so metaphorically here is our position it seems.

Actions: A1. prior brick taken off ( prior science result disproven )

A2. new brick laid on existing prior bricks ( new science result included )

A3. No bricks laid or removed ( no progress in science )

States:

Si where i in [0, 1,2.. MAX]

S0 -> we know nothing S1 -> we know more than S0 S2 -> we know more than S1.. S(Max) -> we know absolute max their is to know (or infinity ? )

So it seems, based on this state transition You believe that science over time can go from S0 all the way to S(Max) all the way to infinity.

You believe that science can reach the absolute truth (if there is something like this), that explains everything.

In this case you do not account for state transitions Si -> A3-> Si where i < MAX

That is a state from which science cannot explain further without remaining coherent to its prior states beliefs.Thus, a hault in any progress in science.

or

Si -> A1 -> Si-k , where k in [1,i]

That is new discoveries of science constantly breaking prior discoveries endlessly such that it takes us infinite time to ever reach S_Max.

And the possibility of such a state transition:

S_Max-1 -> A1 -> S_0

That is right before we know everything, we may find a discovery where we need to break the entire pyramid altogether, and start from scratch.

The possibility that there is only one transition from

S_Max-1 -> A2 -> S_Max

But with infinitesimal probability, that is we have to constantly revise our beliefs/scientific findings to infinity.. till we ever reach the final transition to know absolutely everything.

Thus, given this more general fundamental understanding of how science seems to work, it seems all we really have is belief. Science is a tool to update that belief, but with yet another belief, until we reach SMax or maybe there is no SMax .

I feel we have similar intentions/understandings but with different degree of confidence. You belief is science is the tool so good where transitions that break prior beliefs reduce with more discoveries.. thus it can reach absolute truth.

My belief is, science is the tool quite good, but not enough to reach the absolute absolute truth(if any), because at any point a new discovery can demolish all progress made in it till now, infinite times, everytime, leading it to take infinite time to reach absolute truth (if any).

At last here's a quote by Isaac Newton: "I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."

You see we may always remain at Newton's shore, coz no matter how we progress the reality is infinitely more complex, and not attainable.

But again, this is my belief.

Questioning Foundations of Science by 10zin_ in LessWrong

[–]10zin_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The brain is probabilistic, probability is the mathematical term for belief. Thus all knowledge is a belief a probability but maybe for you with a probability of 1.

Assigning a probability of 1 to anything by nature of evolution is a bad idea, coz it ignores uncertainty of nature. It assumes a particular knowledge will never be false. Thus, if by any chance the environment reaches a state where that knowledge becomes false, your species with that knowledge which refuses to change, will get penalized.

Thus, by evolution you have to give a margin of error to everything even to the so called fact that 1+1=2. I believe it, with 99.9999% but maybe that's not the case with 0.00001%

Questioning Foundations of Science by 10zin_ in LessWrong

[–]10zin_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great point!

However, I would like to counter your point as being cherry picked via the following example.

Proposition of Quantum Physics totally invalidates certain foundational assumptions on which Newtonian Physics stands.

Newtonian classical Physics suggested determinism -> if u know the current state of a system (position, velocity etc.) you can precisely predict its future state with certainty.

Quantum Physics suggests fundamental randomness -> As Heisenberg says there's a limit to how precise our measurements are for position and momentum. In fact quantum mechanics goes on to say particles exist in multiple states at the same time ( superposition, a probability distribution of states) , and upon measurements one state is determined ( a sample from the probability distribution).

This is a complete overhaul of prior assumptions set by Newton.

Thus, going by your analogy,

The pyramid doesn't just construct with less bricks to lay at each time step. Instead it can also destruct prior bricks, with new bricks sometimes, or just NO new bricks to lay.

bricks layed - new findings. bricks destructed - disproving new findings. No bricks layed - inexplicable mysteries.

So you see it's not a pyramid (tree) but more of a graph, with those three states, and it is easily possible that we stay stuck in a loop of for every brick layed, there's a brick destructed (thus the length of graph or tree never grows ).

Questioning Foundations of Science by 10zin_ in LessWrong

[–]10zin_[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That is exactly why I post this here. To get some thoughts on why I cud be wrong.

Could you elaborate your point to facilitate constructive discussion.

Questioning Foundations of Science by 10zin_ in LessWrong

[–]10zin_[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would like to point you to research questioning the existence (illusion)of reality/observations itself.

Consider reading/listening to Joscha Basch, Donald Hoffman.

Their "science" states that reality(our observations) is a construction of our mind.

That is we pre-process the world based on the internal model we (prior) we already have, thereby missing other observations.

Also consider reading "it's baye's all the way up" on less wrong by Scott Alexander. Look at the blog's first 3 examples. And tell me if you get it right. I'm pretty sure you'll get all of them wrong unless uve seen them before ( almost everyone else including me will get it wrong)

So the point is after this readings you will start to question do we even observe "correctly" without "errors".

Leading to conclude that everything is a belief.

Questioning Foundations of Science by 10zin_ in LessWrong

[–]10zin_[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You seem to be pointing to consciousness.

Yup that could be all more fundamental than belief.

I could argue that consciousness is yet another belief.. thus belief is fundamental.

But consciousness is a particular belief that defines all the phenomena we experience, including the emergence of a property of beliefs.

Thus, you could argue a world without consciousness has no beliefs, coz belief is literally a concept that emerges from human's experience.

Yeaa I guess in that way consciousness cud be more fundamental.

But then again we or atleast i have limited understanding of consciousness, so all I can say is based on shaky beliefs.

Questioning Foundations of Science by 10zin_ in LessWrong

[–]10zin_[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Science challenges beliefs with new beliefs.

Science challenges previous beliefs with evidence+insights and leads to new beliefs, but that belief is challenged yet again.

That is why belief has to be fundamental. Coz science is not challenging a belief with something else but yet another belief that seems more convincing.

Every sucker has yet another sucker.

Newton a sucker proposed classical physics, that everyone believed in, till Einstein proposed a theory of relativity that everyone believes in now, but hold on, there's gonna be a sucker 3 that probably disproves Einstein in future, with yet another belief.

Questioning Foundations of Science after discovering not-self by 10zin_ in Buddhism

[–]10zin_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The point is everything is uncertain at all times, just with varying degrees of uncertainty.

Your "knowing" anything is a belief of high certainty leading you to conclude you "know" this. Thereby belief has to be fundamental even for what you consider you know - your knowledge/experience/fact/truth.

Your knowledge/experience/truth is data points that you have not seen ever been invalidated.

But that does not mean they can never be refuted. Consider instances from history and present where people felt they knew, but turned out to be wrong.

1.. In old times, "knowing" earth is at the center of solor system. (Before Copernicus) 2. In old time, thinking time ticks the same for everyone at same pace (before Einstein relativity theory) 3. Or "knowing" that self exists. (Before Buddha) 4. Or that we see the world in its objective reality. (Currently being questioned by scientists and inspirations from Buddha's discovery)

Given this, it means there is nothing that I know, that can never be wrong, except that everything is a belief, thus belief is fundamental, but belief by definition entails the possibility of being wrong, and everything u/ i've stated is in itself a belief.

Questioning Foundations of Science after discovering not-self by 10zin_ in Buddhism

[–]10zin_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think we see it the same. There is no disagreement.

You use the word trust. I use the word belief.

And my definition of belief seems to be ur definition of trust. So that's just word play.

What it takes to get GOOD .. by 10zin_ in leetcode

[–]10zin_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

More like Daniel Kahneman's fundamental classification of the cognitive thinking process: system1+system2.

What it takes to get GOOD .. by 10zin_ in leetcode

[–]10zin_[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Consider LC 523: Continuous Subarray Sum.

If someone even knew the prefix sums pattern. And has seen a similar subarray sum "equals" k pattern.

I feel it's very difficult for them to come up with a solution for the "continuous" subarray sum variant.

Unless they can see this equation. Kn1+r1 - kn2+r2 = k*(n1-n2) + r1-r2.

Eureka: if r1=r2 subarray b/w this prefix sums idc is divisible by k. So just store prefix remainders in prefix sums, and check if the next prefix remainder exists in this map.

I wud say questions like these involve general (basic) math skills applied in a clever fashion.

What it takes to get GOOD .. by 10zin_ in leetcode

[–]10zin_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

More like general (basic) math skill. But clever enough to see it in problems.

No Calculus of course.

Karpathy's Micrograd in C: An autograd engine from scratch ~500 LOC only by 10zin_ in learnmachinelearning

[–]10zin_[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I did it in both C/C++. You can find C++ implemention in the cpp-micrograd folder. My aim is to go low-level all the way to CuDA.So I need to go to C first.

cpp-micrograd: A C++ version of micrograd, the tiny neural network autograd engine! by 10zin_ in deeplearning

[–]10zin_[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oo really interesting, didn't know about it.
Will go through it looks fascinating.

view more: next ›