Look, imagine you are a scientists in a 3D shooting game, like Quake for example. And you want to figure out the fundamental reality. So in the game, you take game objects and look really close. You find that everything is made up of very small triangles. Then you very carefully slice out a single triangle, and shoots right at its center with some particle like thing from game. You find that something inside the triangle reflect the particle.
You are enthralled! "There is something there still!" you say to yourself.
But there is nothing there! The game engine just figured that the particle would collide with the triangle, and altered its velocity accordingly. But you are too caught up in your assumption that you do more experiments (I think this is what our physicists are doing in our world). But what ever you do, you can only observe the behavior implemented by the game engine, and not the game engine itself, or the computer that is running it....
But you can imagine it. You can imagine an explicitly implemented program and a computer with limited memory that is running it. And if you are allowed to consider it, they can do other experiments. Instead of looking into smaller and smaller things, you can look for other observations that might confirm this. Maybe you can go really far and see if they are not allowed to go beyond some threshold (Ref: The movie "The thirteenth floor").
And would that be pursuing something metaphysical?
> But what ever you do, you can only observe the behavior implemented by the game engine, and not the game engine itself, or the computer that is running it....
Yes, physics is about learning about the rules that the game engine implements. It’s not about learning about some reality outside our own, that’s the domain of metaphysics. Physics can’t answer questions about what is happening outside our own reality, and indeed neither can anything else inside reality because (as you pointed out) we can only test and observe what the game engine allows.
>Physics can’t answer questions about what is happening outside our own reality..
But the observation that I describe does happen in our reality. It is just that if you look for a reason for such observations here, you are not going to find it.
It is just like when say, biology have to reach out to chemistry and chemistry to physics and physics to math for deeper explanations for processes and observations that are native to their domain. So as unprecedented as it may be, physics should may be try to reach out to metaphysics as a way to explain observations that happen in its domain..
> But the observation that I describe does happen in our reality
I don't know what observation you're talking about--you were giving an analogy, right? What am I misunderstanding about your claim?
> It is just like when say, biology have to reach out to chemistry and chemistry to physics and physics to math for deeper explanations for processes and observations that are native to their domain.
Yes, this is emergent complexity and physicists already look into this (e.g., holographic principle). In your game/engine analogy, we're still talking about examining the game, not the game engine.
>I don't know what observation you're talking about..
In my example, the observation would be something alters the path of a particle that is shot at the center of the triangle (where it is empty space). This happens in the game reality, but cannot be explained by looking within the same (for example, if you expect to find a smaller triangle at the center of the bigger triangle)
This is a bit like saying the universe is made of tiny pink elephants, and arguing that this is only untrue in some “naive sense” because we redefined “tiny pink elephant” to mean “excitation of a field”. It doesn’t seem more naive to me to admit that the world is not in fact made of tiny pink elephants than it is to argue “yes it still is made of tiny pink elephants [but only because we redefined the term to match the evidence]”.
It’s crazy to me that reality is just waves in quantum fields that interact to create the illusion of particles, which interact to create atoms and chemistry and biology and neurology and society.
This is the best mathematical model in existence but I’d be cautious equating it with reality. There are lots of gaps that may eventually necessitate that we switch to a more convenient formalism. It has happened many times already.
That comment doesn't evidence cheating, it reiterates that they submitted the result prematurely which was already admitted in the comment that your link was responding to.
EDIT: removed a lament that people don’t read comments they respond to, in case this violates the site rules.
So, the charge was that they submitted a build specifically tuned for clickbench
The defense was that it wasn't specifically tuned for clickbench, it was just an early incomplete build that happened to only support exactly and clickbench queries and nothing else...
Doesn't feel like much of a defense to me. At best it's benchmaxxing if not clear outright cheating
> The defense was that it wasn't specifically tuned for clickbench, it was just an early incomplete build that happened to only support exactly and clickbench queries and nothing else.
ClickBench tests a very narrow set of SQL: scans, aggregations, sorts, and filters. It ends up being a great starting point for building a query engine before layering in more functionality
> The defense was that it wasn't specifically tuned for clickbench, it was just an early incomplete build that happened to only support exactly and clickbench queries and nothing else...
According to both the ClickHouse founder who was levying the accusations and the pgrust creator, the submission worked for many other queries it just didn’t have full SQL support.
Whenever people benchmark something my default assumption is that they want to know how well it performs, but I’m not the author and can’t speak to their intentions.
I think it is reasonable, if apparently incorrect, for people to assume that your account is a throwaway account, given its name. I'm surprised that you're surprised by this.
Account names are just unique strings within a set of allowed characters. I could make my handle “TheKingOfEngland”, but it wouldn’t actually make me English royalty. I thought in a community of programmers this would be self-evident, but alas not.
I’m not sure if they’re equally reasonable, but inferring something from a username is at least as foolish as making inferences based on account age. The critical distinction, however, is that my account age remark was tongue in cheek while you joined the fray to defend drawing conclusions from a username.
> inferring something from a username is at least as foolish as making inferences based on account age.
That's just not so, friend.
Again, when 99.9% of usernames with the form throwaway+random number string are throwaway accounts, it's reasonable to assume any account fitting the pattern is such an account, because odds are astronomically high that it is. This has to do with something called convention, and I'd suggest reading more on that topic and how it can affect inferences.
Whereas, there is no indicator about how any account may tie to the experience of the person posting behind the account. It's as useless a metric as account name itself for trying to gauge that, and honestly, that should be obvious.
> is that my account age remark was tongue in cheek while you joined the fray to defend drawing conclusions from a username.
You put the emoticon to indicate a perhaps tongue in cheek response, bur the rest of the text and conversation didn't really support that, nor do the continuing replies.
I merely corrected you when you tried to say it wasn't reasonable for people to assume an account named such as yours is a throwaway, because it very, very much is.
> Again, when 99.9% of usernames with the form throwaway+random number string are throwaway accounts
Your entire argument is predicated on this completely fabricated statistic.
> You put the emoticon to indicate a perhaps tongue in cheek response, bur the rest of the text and conversation didn't really support that, nor do the continuing replies.
I’m the authority on my own emotional state, but also as a native English speaker I can assure you that our dialogue thus far comports perfectly with someone who was speaking tongue in cheek, but who also doesn’t mind watching people try to dig themselves out of holes they created for no discernible benefit :shrug:
I'm not, I think you're ego is preventing you from admitting you said something silly, however.
> Your entire argument is predicated on this completely fabricated statistic.
It's not fabricated in the least.
> I’m the authority on my own emotional state
Sure, that doesn't mean what you claim is honest however. Plenty of people would claim to be joking when they were anything but, for all sorts of reasons.
> as a native English speaker I can assure you that our dialogue thus far comports perfectly with someone who was speaking tongue in cheek
Native English speaker here also, and I can assure you that your dialogue thus far also comports perfectly with someone who was not speaking tongue in cheek, but asserted they were so they could hopefully put an end to a conversation that was started by calling them out for something silly.
> but who also doesn’t mind watching people try to dig themselves out of holes they created for no discernible benefit
Funny, that's what I'm watching here. It's a hobby of mine to recognize people who can't admit when they are wrong and need to have the last word, taking it to an extreme level. There isn't much more to be gained from this conversation since you refuse to be reasonable and acknowledge longstanding convention regarding the naming of throwaway accounts, but I am curious how much longer you will drag it out.
My reply addressed specific, factual errors (e.g., your fabricated statistic, your baseless speculation about my motives, etc). There was no ad hominem.
The statistic was not fabricated. You would have to be especially ignorant of internet and specifically HN culture to truly think so.
The ad hominem was in accusing me of someone trying to dig themselves out a hole, when really, that's just you for having said something silly, acting arrogant on top of that and blaming the community, while continuing to deny a well established convention because you can't accept being wrong. It's the only reason you're still replying.
> The statistic was not fabricated. You would have to be especially ignorant of internet and specifically HN culture to truly think so.
It's fabricated until you provide a credible source. Even if you provide a source, my criticism of your statistic would still not be "ad hominem".
> The ad hominem was in accusing me of someone trying to dig themselves out a hole
That was never my argument, you pivoted the conversation to my motives, and I told you that I enjoyed watching people try to dig themselves out of holes.
> because you can't accept being wrong. It's the only reason you're still replying.
Pretty sure "the hardest part" is populating the downloads dir with quality downloads (including navigating the maze of public and private trackers, dealing with ad spam, trackers that don't actually download anything), finding subtitles that match your download, naming files according to Jellyfin's conventions, using a VPN to cover your tracks (probably one that supports port forwarding if you don't want to be limited in the content you can actually download), etc. It's not insurmountable, but it's not easy. I can find Mac Minis all over Craigslist and Facebook Marketplace.
> That's some bizarre logic: copyright predates the existence of scientific papers
Firstly, this isn’t true, but more importantly it doesn’t matter because the parent’s claim doesn’t depend on scientific papers predating copyright.
The first scientific paper was Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, published in London on March 6, 1665 (or you can go back as far as Aristotle if you prefer). The first copyright law is England’s Statute of Anne (1710).
There is nothing 'dumb' about DNS. It is a 'sophisticated software to translate human readable addresses to machine-understandable and infinitely routable identifiers'.
Anything can be reduced down to 'dumb' if you try hard enough. Officer, these are just chemicals in a specific quantity and just goes boom when mixed together.
You missed the point spectacularly. “Dumb pipes” doesn’t denigrate DNS, it means that DNS doesn’t make judgment calls, there is no intelligence making decisions about where and whether to route things.
I think the main thing that this does better than an ipad is voice control. Maybe you can buy an iPad dock with a speaker and a good microphone that would obviate this concern (happy to take correction if so), but if you're in the kitchen it's often nice to be able to ask it to play music or if carrots are safe for dogs to eat or whatever. It's nice not to have to use your hands when they are covered in chicken juice or whathaveyou.
reply