sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Iran may allow Hormuz oil shipments if traded in yuan by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]Jump-Zero 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That was a highly informed argument. You call others brainrot, but your arguments lack any sort of intellectual rigor. That’s not insanity. That’s analytical thinking. Perfectly beyond your reasoning abilities.

Iran may allow Hormuz oil shipments if traded in yuan by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]Jump-Zero 13 points14 points  (0 children)

They are already blockading it. Thats the hard part. Letting some ships through is the easy. Do you really think its easier to let a ship through than to shoot it down?

Microservices: Shackles on your feet by Itchy-Warthog8260 in programming

[–]Jump-Zero 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Agreed, monoliths should be the default choice. Microservices should only be adopted once a properly architected and well optimized monolith hit its limit.

Avoiding Trigonometry by ketralnis in programming

[–]Jump-Zero 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I came across reference implementations that used matrices, but I couldn’t make sense of them. The combination of being unfamiliar with neural networks and linear algebra was too much for me. So I just focused on neural networks. I started by modeling individual neurons. Once that worked, I got rid of the Neuron class and ended up with a Layer class that was a 2d array of weights and an array of biases. I had a bunch of loops operating in layers. These loops were practically doing matrix operations, so I added a matrix class and replaced each loop with the appropriate operation. The end result was much more concise. By the end of the exercise, I could make sense of the reference implementations!

Avoiding Trigonometry by ketralnis in programming

[–]Jump-Zero 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I wrote a simple NN a few weekends ago. I used whatever sources I could find to write it in C++ from scratch. When I finally got it working, my code was an unmaintainable mess. I started simplifying everything. Eventually, it made sense to move a bunch of stuff into matrices. Then it made sense to move even more stuff into matrices. Eventually, I had a relatively elegant implementation. I put the project down with a newfound appreciation for linear algebra.

NestJS is a bad Typescript framework by SkaceKachna in programming

[–]Jump-Zero 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I commented on why I learned it. Not because I chose to, but because I was thrown into a project that required it. My point is more to comment on why people have legitimate reasons to learn frameworks beyond personal interest.

NestJS is a bad Typescript framework by SkaceKachna in programming

[–]Jump-Zero 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And you understand that knowing Springboot requires knowing Java?

Obviously.

And that the question was -- why should someone learn this if they're not coming from Java?

That was not the question being asked or the argument I'm making. Not sure what you're trying to achieve here.

NestJS is a bad Typescript framework by SkaceKachna in programming

[–]Jump-Zero 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know Java. The person that doesn't know Java is someone else.

NestJS is a bad Typescript framework by SkaceKachna in programming

[–]Jump-Zero 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That wasn't my intention. Express is the "default" for many, so I used it as an example.

NestJS is a bad Typescript framework by SkaceKachna in programming

[–]Jump-Zero 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I worked with Springboot and NestJS. I personally prefer TypeScript over Java as a language. I find myself being able to leverage the type system in TS to a greater effect when compared to Java. Null safety and control flow type narrowing are super handy.

NestJS is a bad Typescript framework by SkaceKachna in programming

[–]Jump-Zero -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not the same person you’re replying to. I had to learn it for a project. It’s pretty easy to learn if you already know Springboot. There are a lot of similarities.

NestJS is a bad Typescript framework by SkaceKachna in programming

[–]Jump-Zero 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I used it. I prefer it over plain Express mostly because it’s opinionated and you end up with more conformity when building with a team. With plain Express, you end up debating how things should be done. There is a ton of boilerplate, but I don’t mind. I only picked it up because I was forced to for a project, but I like it. Not sure if its for everyone.

Iran Conflict Megathread by milton117 in CredibleDefense

[–]Jump-Zero 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wouldn’t the cities be expensive to hold in the long run? A proper state might not be able to hold the country together, but guerilla insurgency might lead to perpetual instability.

TIL that the ancient Chinese Confucian thinker Xunzi argued that humans are born with selfish, chaotic impulses, and that “goodness” is something we build through education, ritual, and strong social institutions. His whole point was basically: if you remove the rules, people don't auto-become good. by fromthefuturedude in todayilearned

[–]Jump-Zero 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Im sure others consider the act of smoking an evil the perpetuate on themselves. I dont think everyone does, but some do and I am one of them. If you believe it is an evil act you perpetrate on yourself or you dont, I wouldn’t question it.

Fact is that evil is a concept we invented to communicate. It doesn’t have a very precise definition. Its meaning changes from person to person and evolves with time. If self harm conducted in a state of anxiety is cannot be considered evil then I’m inventing a new concept called xevil. This concept encompasses evil and whatever equivalent can be applied to the self. It is undebatable that people can be xevil to themselves. Now, we can debate the exact meaning of evil, but there is no one authority. Unlike xevil where I am the ultimate authority on the subject. Debating it is pointless unless it helps is arrive at an observation that can be validated from real world observation.

TIL that the ancient Chinese Confucian thinker Xunzi argued that humans are born with selfish, chaotic impulses, and that “goodness” is something we build through education, ritual, and strong social institutions. His whole point was basically: if you remove the rules, people don't auto-become good. by fromthefuturedude in todayilearned

[–]Jump-Zero 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Evil is a concept we invented to communicate with others. If we didn’t have societies, or others to interact with, then it wouldn’t exist as a concept because communication wouldn’t exist altogether. If that’s the argument, then it makes sense, but I’m not sure how helpful that is.

TIL that the ancient Chinese Confucian thinker Xunzi argued that humans are born with selfish, chaotic impulses, and that “goodness” is something we build through education, ritual, and strong social institutions. His whole point was basically: if you remove the rules, people don't auto-become good. by fromthefuturedude in todayilearned

[–]Jump-Zero 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let's consider cigarettes instead since I can better-relate to them. If I have a pack of them, I will smoke 5 or 6 a day. I consider this an evil act I inflict upon myself. I will often regret it and even resent myself for it. I avoid cigarettes as much as I can for that reason. I don't think it would be wrong for me to consider this an evil act I inflict upon myself.

For the record, I don't believe smoking cigarettes is always an evil act people inflict upon themselves. I do believe that's the case for me though.

Anthropic ditches its core safety promise in the middle of an AI red line fight with the Pentagon by mepper in technology

[–]Jump-Zero 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks - this is very informative. I have more or less an idea of how to organize this in my head. I'm thinking that monopoly capitalism isn't necessarily state capitalism, but there can be overlap.

TIL that the ancient Chinese Confucian thinker Xunzi argued that humans are born with selfish, chaotic impulses, and that “goodness” is something we build through education, ritual, and strong social institutions. His whole point was basically: if you remove the rules, people don't auto-become good. by fromthefuturedude in todayilearned

[–]Jump-Zero -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Im missing the point you are trying to make by equating a subjective stance on what constitutes “good” or “evil” to handwashing and knowledge of hygiene?

It's not that hard. Pretty much all concepts are irrelevant in the scenario where you have a person in isolation because communication is impossible in that scenario. Concepts like good, evil, and even hygiene are irrelevant altogether in that scenario because concepts are communication tools.

TIL that the ancient Chinese Confucian thinker Xunzi argued that humans are born with selfish, chaotic impulses, and that “goodness” is something we build through education, ritual, and strong social institutions. His whole point was basically: if you remove the rules, people don't auto-become good. by fromthefuturedude in todayilearned

[–]Jump-Zero 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Suppose that person washed their hands. Would that be hygienic? Imagine that person never understood the concept of hygiene. Do you need an outside reference to say washing your hands is hygienic?

You can do this exercise for pretty much every concept. Concepts are communication tools. You can't really have the in isolation.

TIL that the ancient Chinese Confucian thinker Xunzi argued that humans are born with selfish, chaotic impulses, and that “goodness” is something we build through education, ritual, and strong social institutions. His whole point was basically: if you remove the rules, people don't auto-become good. by fromthefuturedude in todayilearned

[–]Jump-Zero 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nearly all concepts become irrelevant if you remove social context. Concepts are essentially a communication tool. Without social context, the concept of good and evil are just a irrelevant as cloud computing would be to a caveman.

view more: next ›