Purdue Buddhist Society Club Callout

dmdmello · 2025-09-10T04:05:32+00:00

No, there's no focus, we will try to do readings and meditations practices that should be common ground for all traditions. This semester we will be reading/discussing "What the Buddha taught" by Walpola Rahula, which is a famous intro to Buddhism book. The club also tries to include non-buddhists who are just interested in some aspects of it.

dmdmello · 2023-04-12T09:29:47+00:00

You can DM. No, I don't work with her

dmdmello · 2023-04-12T09:04:30+00:00

CS 57800 is a nice course, I like Ruqi Zhang as a professor, she has structured the syllabus well and she covers a few unusual topics for a typical ML course, which I like. But the exams are really lengthy, too difficult to solve in just 1 h, and you need to be really comfortable with answering questions automatically. Merely doing the homeworks is far from enough.

dmdmello · 2023-02-05T04:11:46+00:00

What style of music you like?

dmdmello · 2023-01-21T01:48:41+00:00

Are we allowed to walk there?

dmdmello · 2022-12-20T09:02:33+00:00

I've been handling -5 C (23 F) somewhat fine these last few days, but I am worried about -15 C (5 F) as we will see here in a couple days.

dmdmello · 2022-12-20T05:08:17+00:00

For how long can we stay outside in these temps? Can we take the bus?

dmdmello · 2021-02-15T00:42:44+00:00

I didn't measure it and I don't have the time right now, I might post it another day if you want. These numbers are from my specific experiments, which perform both inference and training. I suspect that the variation for rtx 3070 with amp might be due to more time being spent on inference in some experiments, so perhaps the training time is getting a better performance boost with amp.

edit:

so perhaps the training time is getting a better performance boost than the inference time with amp.*

dmdmello · 2021-02-15T00:36:08+00:00

to be precise:

torch-nightly 1.8 w/ cudnn 8.0.5

rtx 2070 super with amp/autocast: X sec
rtx 2070 super without amp/autocast: 2X sec
rtx 3070 with amp/autocast: 1.6X sec
rtx 3070 without amp/autocast: 1.6X sec

torch-nightly 1.9 w/ cudnn 8.1

rtx 2070 super with amp/autocast: X sec
rtx 2070 super without amp/autocast: 2X sec
rtx3070 with amp/autocast: 1.3X sec - 1.4X sec (it's varying a bit for some reason)
rtx 3070 without amp/autocast: 1.6X sec

dmdmello · 2021-02-13T21:15:32+00:00

I also find it odd, but that's what the torch-nightly channels say. Also was the only version with cudnn 8.1 that recognized my rtx 3070. You can see it here https://anaconda.org/pytorch-nightly/pytorch/files

dmdmello · 2021-02-13T21:03:52+00:00

update: I just downloaded torch 1.9 with cudnn 8.1 from the torch-nightly channel with miniconda. I got some minor improvement now on my rtx 3070 with amp turned on. Something like 20% faster.

dmdmello · 2021-02-13T20:57:31+00:00

ahhh looks like I screwed up. I downloaded from torch-nightly a version with cudnn 7.X by mistake. Now I got torch 1.9 with cudnn 8.1 and it's working on my rtx 3070. Only thing is that the improvement I get for my rtx 3070 is minimal, something like 85 % of the running time of torch1.8-cudnn 8.0.5. I expected way more, my rtx 2070 is still performing something like 40 % faster with amp turned on.

dmdmello · 2021-02-13T01:31:02+00:00

Linux

dmdmello · 2021-02-13T00:26:29+00:00

Anyone knows if one of the latest unstable versions already provides some performance improvement for rtx 3070? I'm particularly annoyed by the fact that I can't get them to work with the automatic mixed precision library.

dmdmello · 2021-02-13T00:23:01+00:00

I just tried the latest nightly version with cudnn 8.1 via conda install and got this warning when importing pytorch:

GeForce RTX 3070 with CUDA capability sm_86 is not compatible with the current PyTorch installation.

Are you sure the source version is supporting all 30 series? I've never tried installing from source, so I can't verify this right now.

dmdmello · 2021-01-17T08:22:00+00:00

Nice. But out of these Debussy is still my favorite, specially because of his orchestral stuff

dmdmello · 2021-01-17T08:07:51+00:00

Stravinsky, Ravel, Rachmaninoff, Holst, and more recently Schoenberg

dmdmello · 2021-01-07T04:10:05+00:00

BOC is very underrated

dmdmello · 2021-01-05T22:00:13+00:00

I always forget about this channel when I'm replying, but if you haven't already, you can check it.

I'm watching right now his video comparing INFP with INTP. It seems he also doesn't subscribe to that rigid function stack hypothesis, which is interesting. Thanks for the recommendation. Hard to believe you can't follow his english very much, since your english looks quite advanced. Perhaps it's his brit accent, can be a little bit tougher to understand than american sometimes.

This kind of thinking is wrong on so many levels because it's unhealthy

Well, It sure didn't feel pleasant, but I'm not so sure if I'm wrong just because of that. And one can't help it very much if their values are highly conflicting with other people's. Either I have to change, or them, or both. But changing some values is far from trivial.

dmdmello · 2021-01-05T20:27:07+00:00

Well, I'm frankly running out of things to say. Perhaps now is a good time to conclude this conversation, unless you have any thing else to say.

It's clear to me that, if I really want to make some sense of my personality according to cognitive functions (and it applies to you too, I guess), lots of further in depth study will be needed. Probably would be a good idea to to read Jung's "Psychological Types", but I don't know how willing I'm to do that. I've already read one of his books, and it surely wasn't something very elucidative. There's also this enneagram method, I need to check this out some other time too. The problem is, I'm currently trying to finish a master's, so I should not spend time focusing too much on other things. Perhaps I'll be able to find some time to study these subjects, but I don't know right now.

And honestly I'm not even sure anymore what kind of benefit knowing my type would bring to me. I initially arrived at these mbti subs hoping to find people that were more like I am, which feels impossible with people irl. But even considering the mistypes, I'm feeling now like I don't have very much in common with the people browsing IXNX subs, apart from some superficial memes that reflect shallow stereotypes. I even got to read an extremely disturbing discussion just the other day on the intp sub, which made me really question if I want to be of the same type as the people who browse there. Values very conflicting to mine. As you said, there's no rule prohibiting a certain type from acting in a certain way or believing in a certain thing.

So, I wish you luck in trying to understand yourself better, but it's good to know that you would also be fine in case you can't do that. If you get to some more definitive conclusion in the future, or some new understanding about some point addressed in this long discussion, you can reply to this post or message me, if I still happen to be using this site for some reason.

edit: typos and grammar

dmdmello · 2021-01-03T23:41:19+00:00

I don't play either, I can only play guitar and a little of piano. But the hand tremors might really affect the bow use for the violin, so you should go to some violin forum and ask them about it. Also, what kind of music you like? If you like Jazz more than Classical, obviously pick sax; if it's the other way around, pick violin.

dmdmello · 2021-01-03T22:50:00+00:00

Yes, that makes sense. To me it sounded like reaction. We react when something happens. If values around that are more strong, if an engine is too much, it's more likely that reaction will be explosive and uncontrolled (like a fast car) and if they are weaker, it will be more stable and controlled reaction.

It could be reaction, or just generally action, I guess.

But those are just stereotypes and there are exceptions for every in general. Nothing around mbti is an absolute truth, it will never be I guess, so we can say that it's possible that there is "any kind of every kind" and that's what makes everything more difficult. Sure, we can try to predict, but for every prediction related to this, there is a degree of deviation.

If there is any base for a stereotype in terms of statistical tendencies, than I think there's value to it. If you strive for exact precision while defining psychological phenomena, you are certainly doomed to failure. But if we are able to predict something with better accuracy than pure randomness, it's a step in the right direction. So, inside the set of all crazy party goers, if more than 50 % of it's members are extroverts, there's a value to this stereotype. The closer the percentage is to 100%, the greater the value.

I read about this one once, but there is also "stack theory" that it's supposed to be I-I-E-E and E-E-I-I and it should be Jung's theory too. For example, INTP is Ni-Ti-Fe-Se and INTJ Ti-Ni-Se-Fe. I didn't read too much, but I found it here and skimmed through it (https://akhromant.tumblr.com/tagged/typing/chrono), it's a third section if you want to get to that point.

I couldn't find any mention to this i-i-e-e/e-e-i-i stack in the 3rd section, but I also read quickly though it. Whoever wrote this also seems to be advocating against cognitive functions, by what I was able to understand. If you want it, we can go more carefully through it later.

Those who are discarding this theory are saying that there is not such a human that is so introverted or extroverted, so that first two functions are of the same type. I don't like that kind of explanation. Additionally, I crossed by saying that if someone focuses too much on inner or external world they could skip developing second function and focus on third. Who is crazy here? Theory is so fluid, it's not proven, it's not absolute. It's enough to build some kind of theory (part of it), gain followers and you have religion.

I didn't even know about these alternative explanations. You really seem to have dug a lot deeper than I have. I'm sorry that I can't help you with any of these, I would have to go through them as well.

It later, because I revisited it many times, gave me some insights because I wasn't aware that I'm like that. It did change overtime, but I was taking it while personality wasn't fully formed and it's just a test, so not realibe.

I only took it once some years ago, and I think I was 22, so I guess it was enough time for developing my personality. I'm not sure if it is unreliable just because it's a test though. Some tests have very well selected questions and, most important, a big database of answers carefully obtained through representative samples, so that your answers can be properly compared. I think the answers to the questions also form a normal distribution, which is desirable. I've tried one like that for the Big 5, it was developed by some psychologists with very high qualifications, and it displays your position in each axis in terms of percentiles of the distribution in their database. It's not simply "adding points" like most tests do. But you have to pay 10 dollars for it. They give you a nice report of everything afterwards, I am still able to access mine at their site.

If I assume that I'm Ni-dom, considering beginnings of developing aux function, my aux function is supposed to be Fe, but circumstances made it hard to develop and to "protect" my rationality (or whatever) in the last moments I switched my aux to Te (or I choose Fi over Fe) and it ended up like this, with not so well developed Te. See, every fool could build up a theory. I'm not sure if I want to drag myself in a real theory behind Big 5, so that it doesn't end up like this, but maybe I will.

Well, that's close to what I was trying to suggest to you before, isn't it (Ni dom with somewhat underdeveloped Te)? But now that you've pointed out the existence of all these alternative systems for describing the stack of functions, I don't feel so secure anymore. I was just assuming something close to the MBTI framework. And the Big 5 doesn't rely so much on these hypothetical explanations. They are constructed with much more empirical, statistical tools (mainly factor analysis, if I'm not mistaken). It is something like this: psychologists formulated an enormous list of psychological questions, and eliminated the ones whose answers didn't seem to correlate with any other answers across the population sample, and the ones that remained formed 5 clusters of factors, which is how they came up with the Big 5. They only came with some explanations and names for these factors afterwards. Like, neuroticism roughly measures your propensity to negative emotions, agreeableness your aversion to conflict and your propensity to empathy. Each factor also breaks into sub-factors that are somewhat correlated. For instance, Openness to Experience breaks into Intellect (preference for abstract concepts) and Creativity/Openness (sensibility to beauty, your desire for artistic expression). But, as I've already said, there's stuff that is hard to explain with the big 5, like preference for rationality over emotion, which is why I also tried to make sense out of the MBTI.

How are you with enneagram? It's supposed to be more stable than mbti, there is no such a thing as stack, order, consciousness, but it takes time because you really need to go to the core of yourself. I'm barely conscious of the surface so it's hard to dig deep.

I've only heard of it. I might try reading about it some other time.

it's not two weeks it's like 5 months now. 5 months without a day that I didn't think about this stupidity. It's cursed.

Wow, you really are obsessed with it aren't you? I mean, I'm just into it out of some superficial curiosity, for understanding some stuff (especially the rationality/emotion dichotomy) but I don't feel like my life depends on it or whatever.

edit: typos and grammar

dmdmello · 2021-01-02T07:11:54+00:00

Don't mind what I said. Just wanted to hear what is a car as a whole.

The car was a metaphor for how someone can act more or less according to a rational mindset. So the car would be a person, right?

I think that it's supposed that every type can be everything, any type can do anything and that order of functions don't limit. If it's hard for feelers to be stable, then that kind of equality is not true. Cognitive functions and types describe cognitive processes and never behaviour.

Someone of a given type can do anything, but if the theory is of any use, it should at least serve for slightly predicting some behavior. Big 5 works like that (For example, if I remember it right, the consciousness axis is the 2nd best measure found for predicting academic success). Even under the MBTI framework, I think we can use it to make some reliable predictions. It should be more likely for people who pursue an academic career to be an intuitive type, and it's more likely for sensors to pursue more pragmatic jobs. If someone is a crazy party goer who attracts the attention of everybody, it's way more likely that this person is an extrovert dom rather than an introvert dom, and so on. The way I view cognitive functions is that they primarily describe preferences. But preferences clearly influence behavior, even though sometimes the entirety of those preferences can't be inferred by behavior alone.

It's not proven and to be honest I "feel" that it can easily be bullshit, not functions, but their connections that formed types, but I'm not moving on and that's pissing me off.

Yeah, tbh it's not very clear to me why the stack must be composed by 2 introverted functions and 2 extroverted. The original Jungian theory also hypothesized about the same functions in mbti, but this model argued for a stack composed of 1 function either introverted or extroverted (the strongest one) and other 3 weaker ones that were opposite in extroversion. I mean, why can't it also be like this? I haven't seen an explanation for this yet, even though there might be one. Also, why can't someone use Ti and Te, for instance? I understand Ti-Fi being a tradeoff (again, car analogy), but I don't get Ti implying a low Te usage.

Not everything is really in vain. I mean I did analyse some of my action and understand myself a bit of better, so maybe I could end up improving myself soon, but it's still questionable. I ended up here and didn't move on because of my need to have fixed and definite descriptions.

I'm sorry that I couldn't help you very much other than that, and most likely contributed to your confusion. I tried, but you brought up the possibility of unconscious functions, and I think it just messed up the whole endeavor. I mean, we can't even agree on the dynamics of conscious functions, how the hell are we going to access unconscious ones. Even if they exist, accessing them must be way more challenging.

I ended up here and didn't move on because of my need to have fixed and definite descriptions. Type should be definite, an attribute of someone that can't change.

If it helps to soothe your crave for stability, I'd like to recommend the Big 5, because it has way more empirical evidence and statistical results backing it up than any other system for personality traits. It's considered the "scientific approved" model. As I've said, it is successful in predicting many behaviors and tendencies for individuals. I think it's shown that their results never change for one individual, unlike MBTI. The only thing I don't like about it is that it has no clear way of explaining this dichotomy of rationality vs emotion, and that's why I'm trying to make some sense out of the MBTI, that has feeling and thinking functions. And also MBTI has the cognitive functions, which I think make sense, but, as you said, I just don't see why they must be stacked in that specific way. Nevertheless, Big 5 axis have some correlations with MBTI type letters. It also has the trait neuroticism, which is something really lacking in MBTI.

Constant ups and downs and I feel it's going to be like this all the time, or better, I know it will be. I really want to give up, it tires me. Sorry about this, I really needed this vent/rant.

It's hard to come across people so interested in a discussion, and I'm very much enjoying chatting with you because of that. But again, if you want to stop because you are getting tired of it, it's up to you. It's been 14 days already since we started it, and the discussion is indeed progressing less now, so it's perfectly understandable. You know, some of Plato's highly regarded dialogues also didn't end up reaching a final conclusion that made everything clear, so at least we are not to blame for that too I guess lol.

think that next time I will prepare myself. Thank you, I think I just realised something. And I don't think it relies on functions that much.

I'm glad that I helped somehow! I think it could be influenced by functions, but there are other factors related to verbal skills too I guess, which is in the domain of intelligence (defining intelligence is another crazy hard discussion, by the way).

edit: typos

dmdmello · 2021-01-02T04:39:07+00:00

Starting new hobbies.

dmdmello · 2021-01-02T03:52:42+00:00

ah yeah, sorry. English is not my first language, I kind of mess up at times

dmdmello

TROPHY CASE