How does what I say validate all or any criticism of science, I just don't think that people who work in this industry get to take all progress though human history and put that on their own lapel.
Do you know this podcast decoding the guru, it is funny at times in breaking down internet persona like Jordan Peterson and Eric Weinstein but what annoys me about it though is this "researchers" talking about fringe internet phenomena. Sure you can find your cooks on the internet but maybe they should point their sharp criticism at their own sometimes and draw conclusions from it, as in stop funding it.
What do you call people that disagree to agree on something ... a research community.
For all the good science I know I can equally find you the most asinine navel gazing triviality repackaged and sold as groundbreaking progress. Please don't get me started on what experts in innovation management ISO 56002:2019 can do to help valorise all this knowledge as they piss on us from from the top floor of their ivory tower.
No, but there are algebraic structures that allow for this, like the Riemann sphere. The proper way to talk about this is the concept of "zero dividers". For Z the only zero divider is zero, 0/0=0.
The closest thing to what you describe is the the dual number (that together with the imaginary and hyperbolic numbers make the geometric numbers), which has zero dividers, and is defined as k^2=0 (where k is not in R).
This is a very interesting number and it can help clean up a lot of problems when using complex numbers.
I would give historians a little bit more credit than that. Sure if you have some agenda and something too proof then you just have to go back X years to find something like a justification. The other day I was reading the transcript of the testimony of a Nazi SS officer at the Nuremberg trail that executed multiple extermination camp wardens and guards for the crime of lacking the right paper work for the killing of inmates under their care. A crime he discovered after someone shipped 2kg of dental gold to his office and he started to wonder how many teeth one had to pull to get that amount and where the death certificates where of the previous owners? Turns out that those teeth where pulled out of the mouth of jewish victims of the gas chambers by other jews who where collaborating in the destruction of their own kind. Nothing about this is controversial amongst holocaust scholars, just fucked up shit that happened. If you wanna conclude from this, Nazis good and jews bad, you are just not paying attention.
If PostgreSQL is to SQL what the browser is to HTML then what is X to SPARQL.
One of the reasons why I don't think X "exists" is because it's not a good way of working with graph.
I sometimes think there should be some alternative tech stack to RDF/SPARQL that isn't part of the semantic web but uses many of the same ideas but you know something that people can use.
Recent Podcast by with Wolfram, maybe the quote is apocryphal or it was by another mathematician, anyway the point was that there is this "toxic" culture of always focusing on formal correct systems while not appreciating the creativity required todo these things. I remembers at some point in the proof of the Poincare conjecture Perelman uses big O notation to argue that one concept is related to another, using a concept from analysis that everyone know in a novel way to proof something new.
This is exactly what I miss about PSD2, a small company still can't just use an api to do it's banking, checking what money comes in and optionally (semi) automate payments. You still need to lobby your country's ministry of finance to get a license. Great for all the hot customer payments startups but useless for a company that just want to do IBAN and cut out the middle man.
Was wondering what makes this different form prosemirror but it looks like it uses it, why would I use this instead? For sure pm is hard at first but once you get the system it's like a new superpower.
I never seem to get CT or what other people get from it. If you told me there is such a thing as geometric algebra where you have a language to talk about multidimensional spaces and that to solve certain practical problems it worth the effort to ask the question if there might be a space where the answer to that problem is trivial.
CT on the other had always struck me as a long list of if expressions with if expressions inside at infinitum.
Love this comment, sure Urbit is shit in that way Solid is shit but somehow Solid is not canceled for being communist while Urbit is fascist. The Cathedral at work for you.
The prescriptive part of neoRX has always been retarded but the descriptive part is on the money.
As I've said elsewhere I fear that it's actually worse then a lack of economic incentives, even in a Communist utopia it won't work because knowledge can not be encoded through semantic predicates.
Thats a little bit unfair, even the W3C's web-agency has a hard time building an accessible website and needed spend two weeks (of billable time) reviewing different web frameworks because of it:
How do you get started with learning GPU programming? I mean that in a pedagogical way, like what is the best educational way forward. Build stupid stuff in shader toys?
Yea sure, CRDTs interesting and all, but what if it mentioned blackchain 50 times? Research groups often worship a particular technology for some imaginary practical applications. Take something like collaborative editing, It's "straightforward" to have a people edit a local document and then use a server as the central point of authority, but that is not an open academic question so people want to do it without the central server. Marijn Haverbeke has made this point more eleganty [1].
Do you know this podcast decoding the guru, it is funny at times in breaking down internet persona like Jordan Peterson and Eric Weinstein but what annoys me about it though is this "researchers" talking about fringe internet phenomena. Sure you can find your cooks on the internet but maybe they should point their sharp criticism at their own sometimes and draw conclusions from it, as in stop funding it.
What do you call people that disagree to agree on something ... a research community. For all the good science I know I can equally find you the most asinine navel gazing triviality repackaged and sold as groundbreaking progress. Please don't get me started on what experts in innovation management ISO 56002:2019 can do to help valorise all this knowledge as they piss on us from from the top floor of their ivory tower.