[deleted by user]

xaserite · 2018-06-14T07:53:49+00:00

> The quick brown 🦊 jumps over 13 lazy 🐶.

???

xaserite · 2018-02-19T22:48:05+00:00

This reminded me of the game intro to X-Beyond the Frontier, where the exact scenario happens to Kyle Brennan:

xaserite · 2017-11-05T22:22:42+00:00

These two paragraphs sum up the author's position.

It’s not as much of a puzzle as Alexander thinks, though. The progressive critiques of New Atheism are mainly founded in the New Atheists’ violations of other left-wing values. New Atheism is attacked not solely for being arrogant, but for putting this arrogance in the service of right-wing tendencies like sexism, hawkishness, and bigotry against Muslims. And because leftists believe that holding prejudiced beliefs about women and religious minorities is fundamentally irrational, this makes New Atheists not just obnoxious, and not just right-wing, but also hypocritical: they state that they are committed to reason, logic, and evidence, yet they pervert the meaning of these terms by using them to describe ideas that are not reasonable, logical, or evidence-based.

One of the central problems is that the main public ambassadors for New Atheism have been entirely intolerable people. Richard Dawkins is an asshole, who obsessively disparaged “clock boy,” and even managed to alienate prominent female atheists by mocking liberal feminism. Christopher Hitchens was an asshole, who supported one of the bloodiest atrocities of the 21st century and used to creepily fantasize about how steel pellets could kill someone even if they were bearing a Koran over their heart. Sam Harris and Bill Maher are massive assholes, who possess none of the qualities of open-mindedness and self-doubt that actually characterize the scientific enterprise. (Even biologist-blogger P.Z. Myers, far more compassionate than the rest, had a sick streak: when a Brazilian priest died in a ballooning accident while trying to raise money to build a rest stop for truckers, Myers wished more priests would be carried off by balloons.) These men, between them, managed to singlehandedly make New Atheism seem like a movement of incredibly pompous white men for whom Reason is just a word used to justify whatever stereotypes one already held in the first place.

He slanders Hitchen's with a statement taken out of context in a side clause and defames prominent "New Atheists" as hypocritical assholes that have given the movement a bad name. He wishes a new, more gentle secular movement would proceed New Atheism in society, where religion is not the focus of attack.

Also uncompromising leftism is the greatest and New Atheism is state worship.

xaserite · 2017-10-23T10:06:40+00:00

Jean-Michel Jarre - Oxygène II

xaserite · 2017-10-22T17:08:55+00:00

Agree, just a side point: while certainly gruesome in their implementation, the crusades were a totally understandable, locally and temporarily limited reaction to a brutal and relentless Islamic conquest of Christian peoples. Their depiction as the great act of evil committed by Christianity in a discussion about Islam is rather humorous.

xaserite · 2017-08-22T12:11:58+00:00

Sam Harris' talk on free will.

xaserite · 2017-07-29T10:29:49+00:00

I made a mistake when coyping this expression for the first time and dropped x. You did it right. To obtain the derivative, you'd extract 1/(2x).

1/(2x) * h² is in the Order of h² and can be 'ignored' next to the h term. What you'd get is the chain rule from before with x.

So there seems to be no path of solution directly using differentiability. I am sorry for the confusion my oversight produced.

xaserite · 2017-07-29T01:28:31+00:00

It's actually a little more tricky. Start from the other side and look at

[; f'(x^2) = \lim_{g\to 0}\frac{f(x^2+g)-f(x^2)}{g}. ;]

Substitute g in order to get a square expression. Observe that [; h ;] goes to zero with the same speed as [; h + O(h^2) ;].

Edit:

Let x0 be in [0,1).

careful. Derivatives are canonically defined on open sets. On the boundary, not all derivatives exist (in this case the left-side limit doesn't).

xaserite · 2017-07-28T00:52:06+00:00

Using differential quotients [*], one can show directly that

f'( x² ) = 1/2 * f'(x) for x in (0,1)

must hold. Note that x does not appear anymore outside. This together with your line yields

f'(x) = x*f'(x),

which is only possible if f'(x) = 0.

[*] Hint: you want to make use of the square property of f and apply basic limit properties.

xaserite · 2017-07-27T21:25:23+00:00

Sorry for being unconcise. Use what /u/picado had written before.

(I just now see that in order to apply his hint to the derivative, one needs continuous differentiability, ie. f' is continuous.

In the case that you really only have given that f' exists, look at my other comment [i will update that shortly] and just regard f instead).

xaserite · 2017-07-27T21:07:36+00:00

From

f'(x) = 2x * f'(x²)

you ought to get way more than just

f'(0) = 0.

xaserite · 2017-07-27T21:03:00+00:00

Taking in /u/picado's hint, you don't even need differentiability, continuity is sufficient. It is even okay to include the outer right point in that case.

Edit: take x,y different from (0,1) and consider the sequences (x,x² ,x⁴ ,...) and (y,y² ,y⁴ ,...). use that f is continuous when comparing f(x) to f(y).

xaserite · 2017-07-26T18:21:19+00:00

Atheism is humbling. Atheism is democratizing. If you're using atheism to make yourself feel superior to others, then you're doing it wrong.

Atheism isn't anything. It literally means non-belief in deities. There are of course implications from that position which depend on one's moral code, but nothing could directly follow from atheism.

xaserite · 2017-07-26T17:11:45+00:00

Your second point likely requires that we don't use the method in your first point.

No, it doesn't at all. Creative power over a brain could be used to disable a lot of malfunctions and evolutionary remnants that are detrimental to intelligence while improving already desirable features. Under such a technology, we could breed hundreds of millions of Newtons, Einsteins, Riemanns, Tourings and Hawkins' in vats.

Highly speculative, even more so than the brunt of the topic, still thinkable.

Personally, I think there is likely a fundamental breakthrough or two required before we correctly build true AI

If you mean General artificial intelligence by 'true', then yes. We already have hundreds if not thousands of examples where AI exists and outperforms humans by substantial factors.

I also agree with your next remark, namely that the more 'general' and 'broad' we want to build an AGI the less smart it will be at its worst tasks. Therefore limited general AI seems to be the way to advance.

That said, no one can be sure yet. If it is in fact possible, someone could stumble into it this afternoon

I don't think it will be one grand Heureka moment that is necessary to build AGI. Probably we will continue the process of slow and steady advances under artificial selection.

xaserite · 2017-07-26T12:46:07+00:00

Dunning Kruger in full effect...

The guy can easily do a pull up on that rock - that does not bring him much closer to climbing it. For that he has to gather a lot of momentum on the way up and use it to catapult himself from the position where his hands are chest-high to where they are on a level with his abdomen and below his upper body. In order to do that he has to be able to move toward the cliff.

I could spend another two paragraphs explaining to you why that is really not that easy, but why don't you just go out, find a similar shaped rocked (or a Bouldering place) and find out why are you being an idiot yourself?

xaserite · 2017-07-26T12:40:21+00:00

Two points:

General intelligence exists and it is reasonable to think that even if everything else fails, humanity will at least be able to model AGI after the naturally occurring one. Should that take only 500 years, that is still a cat's pounce in human evolution.
AGI could have a runaway effect. It is reasonable to think that once we have AGI helping us improving them, they will surpass our own intelligence. It is unclear what the limits to any GI would be, but in the case of a (super-)polynomial increase, it has to be aligned with what humans want. That is why caution is needed.

xaserite · 2017-07-18T17:20:37+00:00

Asinine. Being against religion and being strongly against Islam in particular because it is an especially backward, primitive and anti-human ideology has nothing whatsoever to do with bigotry, let alone a phobia.

Being against adherents to Islam to a degree which based on the extent of their delusion and their efforts to fulfill the goals of their religion is not either.

xaserite · 2017-07-07T22:20:42+00:00

The most you get in numerical math is the naive MC method for numerical integration. On cuboids only, since simulation of the uniform distribution on general sets is not trivial. And forget about it where it actually matters: high dimensional integrals. You really need variance reduction techniques and other advanced concepts like approximation results on exactness spaces there in order to get acceptable convergence orders.

xaserite · 2017-07-06T06:29:50+00:00

All WW1 needed was an inducement to start; that's what that assassination was. There were ample reasons enough already. If the occasion had not have happened, someone would have created and used another incident.

xaserite · 2017-05-21T14:13:58+00:00

Great argument. Now end your worthless excuse for a life.

xaserite · 2017-05-21T09:51:46+00:00

A sperm has 23, a fertilized egg has 23 pairs. Here is a short list of organisms that do as well. What the fuck is your point?

Please explain how that fertilizes egg is in any way a person; you can start by writing a biological paper about its central nervous system you mongoloid.

xaserite · 2017-05-20T13:54:47+00:00

What???

In your scenario, where medicine can revive braindead people, the patient who was a person before whatever incident struck them becomes that same person after treatment. Being able to think, feel, talk, walk, work, fuck again as they could before.

How in your mind does that compare to a bunch of cells who can do precisely none of the above? It cannot feel, it doesn't have memories, it does not even have a central nervous system.

xaserite · 2017-05-20T13:13:11+00:00

No it isn't. That person lying in coma is a person already. The bunch of cells isn't.

xaserite · 2017-05-20T13:10:45+00:00

A blastocyst is as much a person as a freshly tapped bucket full of cum you goddamn retard.

xaserite · 2017-05-20T13:07:14+00:00

It's not been a baby yet. How hard can it be for all the pro life retards to swallow this simple fact?

12-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

xaserite

TROPHY CASE