I follow your connection, though I think your unit analogy is a strawman.
Do you want to give two different types to complex numbers, depending on whether a given complex number represents a point versus a transformation (an amplitwist)?
The distinction is whether zero is meaningful independent of a choice of origin. Zero displacement is meaningful. Zero position is arbitrary.
Are you thinking of displacement as an operation? Because it is just as well a vector. I don't see the connection to section I highlighted from the article.
The part in this that I most question / deviate from is what I've quoted below about having distinctions (syntactically?) between objects and operations. Conceptually, it's a good distinction. But is it so clearly wise to bake in that distinction into the formal framework when doing calculations or proof?
> Most of the time we think of complex numbers as vectors in R2 or as rotation+scaling operators, but rarely do we actually we want them in both roles at the same time. So it is not very natural to equate the two objects, as opposed to finding a correspondence between them.
> So GA ends up being very stuck because it equates “vectorial objects” and “operators that act on vectorial objects”. It would be better to express all the geometric objects you care about in their most natural forms, and then find isomorphisms between them when it’s necessary to do so. Otherwise all the meanings get blurred together and it’s very confusing. So that’s another problem with geometric algebra: eliding the distinction between vectors and operators is undesirable, confusing, and disingenuous.
People are jumping on it being an important file to review. You don't want to ignore the diff.
Even if that's true, you definitely do not want to attempt merge two lock files, and using the .gitattributes file to set the merge strategy is a good idea!
If there is a stack of size n and you make a modification at the first change, closest to the trunk, is there a single git command you can run to rebase the other n-1 branches and ensure they remote branches are updated?
Woodworking is, like, the quintessential craft. I think it is very useful to bring it in when discussion "craft"!
I am not myself a woodworker, however I have understood that part of what makes it "crafty" is that the woodworker reads grain, adjusts cuts, and accepts that each board is different.
We can try to contrast that to whatever Ikea does with wood and mass production of furniture. I would bet that variation in materials is "noise" that the mass production process is made to "reject" (be insensitive to / be robust to).
But could we imagine an automated woodworking system that takes into account material variation, like wood grain, not in an aggregate sense (like I'm painting Ikea to do), but in an individual sense? That system would be making judgements that are woodworker-like.
The craft lives on. The system is informed by the judgement of the woodworker, and the craftperson enters an apprenticeship role for the automation... perhaps...
Until you can do RL on the outcome of the furniture. But you still need craft in designing the reward function.
> Intel's first 32-bit microprocessor was the iAPX 432, which was introduced in 1981, but was not a commercial success. It had an advanced capability-based object-oriented architecture, but poor performance compared to contemporary architectures such as Intel's own 80286 (introduced 1982), which was almost four times as fast on typical benchmark tests.
I know that there was OO hype, but 1981 seems kind of early. I also know that OO means many, many things. What does it mean here, if anything?
Are the 50 for loops truly necessary in the manual C code example of a Kalman filter? At least introduce a few functions (that could be inlined and loop-fused) for some matrix operations?
To each their own!