> Because they are vibrating, a lot of that energy is being wasted in brownian motion. So the denser it is, the more your average vector is going to be toward more dense brownian motion as the particles interact and induce more brownian motion ... Seems pretty intuitive to me.
Loving math is not necessarily a problem. But if you want others to love it too, you have to explain it in a way that makes them see the light.
A lot of STEM education is more along the lines of "take the rapid-fire calculus class, memorize a bunch of formulas, and then use them to find the transfer function of this weird circuit". It's not entirely useless, but it doesn't make you love the theory.
I don't get why EE education emphasizes problems of this sort. The infinite grid is an extreme example, but solving weirdly complicated problems involving Kirchoff's laws and Thevenin's theorem was a common way to torture students back in my day...
Here, I don't think it's even useful to look at this problem in electronic terms. It's a pure math puzzle centered around an "infinite grid of linear A=B/C equations". Not the puzzle I ever felt the need to know the answer to, but I certainly don't judge others for geeking out about it.
> Gary Marcus isn't about "getting real", it's making a name for himself as a contrarian to the popular AI narrative.
That's an odd standard. Not wanting to be wrong is a universal human instinct. By that logic, every person who ever took any position on LLMs is automatically untrustworthy. After all, they made a name for themselves by being pro- or con-. Or maybe a centrist - that's a position too.
Either he makes good points or he doesn't. Unless he has a track record of distorting facts, his ideological leanings should be irrelevant.
The complaints about licensing seem a bit weird given that the company actually accommodates hobbyists. They have a $100-something perpetual home license that doesn't require internet access.
Most other vendors of niche "pro" software just give the middle finger to hobbyists and want you to pony up thousands of dollars for an annual subscription.
I think it's perfectly OK to say "I don't need this, open-source tools work for me". Just like you can use KiCad instead of Cadence for PCB design. But getting angry at Mathworks for wanting money from commercial users seems weird.
> Formal Methods in general are underrated in the industry. Pretty much no large companies except AWS (thank you Byron Cook!) use them at a large scale.
At least Microsoft and Google poured a lot of money into this by funding well-staffed multi-year research projects. There's plenty of public trail in terms of research papers. It's just that not a whole lot came out of it otherwise.
The problem isn't that the methods are underrated, it's that they aren't compatible with the approach to software engineering in these places (huge monolithic codebases, a variety of evolving languages and frameworks, no rigid constraints on design principles).
The original post asserted the article is nonsense; you're trying to justify that by saying you don't like the author's writing style. Two separate things...
The article is mostly correct, although it makes some weird claims (e.g., the Shellshock bug had nothing to do with the class of bugs the article is complaining about - it was a vulnerability in the shell itself). It definitely has a "newcomer hates things without understanding why they are the way they are" vibe, but you actually need that every now and then. The old-timers tend to say "it was originally done this way for a reason and if you're experienced enough, you know how to deal with it", but what made sense 30-40 years ago might not make much sense today.
The main reason system() exists is that people want to execute shell commands; some confused novice developers might mix it up with execl(), but this is not a major source of vulnerabilities. The major source of vulnerabilities is "oh yeah, I actually meant to execute shell".
So if you just take away the libcall, people will make their own version by just doing execl() of /bin/sh. If you want this to change, I think you have to ask why do people want to do this in the first place.
And the answer here is basically that because of the unix design philosophy, the shell is immensely useful. There are all these cool, small utilities and tricks you can use in lieu of writing a lot of extra code. On Windows, command-line conventions, filesystem quirks, and escaping gotchas are actually more numerous. It's just that there's almost nothing to call, so you get fewer bugs.
The most practical way to make this class of bugs go away is to make the unix shell less useful.
There's a ton of hobbies like that. There are people who collect out-of-print comic books, sports memorabilia, old militaria, etc. What's the point of any of it? It's the joy of having a hobby and being a part of a community, not the utility of the gear itself.
"Extremist" is just a pejorative variant of "radical". I assume they're using it tongue-in-cheek.
When it comes to speech, it's really not hard to imagine positions that would have been controversial at any point in the history of the US. That doesn't mean you can't hold them, but others don't need to agree, and that's how you end up with labels of this sort.
Back in the olden days, pressure-treated wood contained compounds of arsenic and chromium. This made it pretty terrible to cut, sand, burn, etc.
The warnings persist in part because older wood still has that problem, so "reclaimed wood" projects can be risky. That said, since mid-2000s, wood in the US and the EU is treated primarily with much safer copper compounds. Copper isn't hugely toxic to humans at the levels you're likely to be exposed to from wood.
To be fair, the treatment often also includes an organic fungicide (the "azole" part in "copper azole"), which is probably not understood as well as copper.
If Signal becomes financially dependent on government contracts, the govt gains a lot of leverage over the app. I'm not sure that's a great position for this particular platform to be in.