|
|
|
|
|
by 082349872349872
581 days ago
|
|
Judging by the fact that we've managed to converse* for over 1Q now, when the generic HN convo intersects at a point, or at most a thread, I'd say we're pretty well aligned (and maybe on a collision course? — maybe approaching vs receding is how one could distinguish alignment from anti-alignment?) Restaurants shall have to wait for a lull; for now I just wonder if Shnur pays his hosting service or if they (spb tochka ru) pay him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w2ixHXhSDs Rorschach zombie? ("I'm not stuck in here defending my thesis to you, you're in here offending my thesis to me!") I'd just meant alu honeycomb and sheer mass as in stiffness techniques for optical tables (tho it appears the resonances mean stiffness/mass matter, not stiffness per se, so granite isn't so good — but maybe granite honeycombs?) Kip Stephen Thorne. interpretability/identifiability? (if it's the ML term set, you'll have to enlighten me) Recall BAWR: "The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken." * insofar as both parties can only read the public part of the other's state, and can write only their own state, it'd be pretty difficult for an online convo to be anything but pareto-optimal, as it only proceeds when both parties are satisfied with its progress? [insert IETF and voluntary collegiality/near-unanimity here] |
|
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42147903
(— thus channelin the other McCarthy “pachyderms may or may not have to shutup”)