Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
(Credit and/or blame to David Gerard for starting this.)
Was reading some science fiction from the 90's and the AI/AGI said 'im an analog computer, just like you, im actually really bad at math.' And I wonder how much damage these one of these ideas (the other being there are computer types that can do more/different things. Not sure if analog turing machines provide any new capabilities that digital TMs do, but I leave that question for the smarter people in the subject of theorethical computer science) did.
The idea that a smart computer will be worse at math (which makes sense from a storytelling perspective as a writer, because smart AI who also can do math super well is gonna be hard to write), which now leads people who read enough science fiction to see the machine that can't count nor run doom and go 'this is what they predicted!'.
Not a sneer just a random thought.
The general idea among computer scientists is that analog TMs are not more powerful than digital TMs. The supposed advantage of an analog machine is that it can store real numbers that vary continuously while digital machines can only store discrete values, and a real number would require an infinite number of discrete values to simulate. However, each real number "stored" by an analog machine can only be measured up to a certain precision, due to noise, quantum effects, or just the fact that nothing is infinitely precise in real life. So, in any reasonable model of analog machines, a digital machine can simulate an analog value just fine by using enough precision.
There aren't many formal proofs that digital and analog are equivalent, since any such proof would depend on exactly how you model an analog machine. Here is one example.
Quantum computers are in fact (believed to be) more powerful than classical digital TMs in terms of efficiency, but the reasons for why they are more powerful are not easy to explain without a fair bit of math. This causes techbros to get some interesting ideas on what they think quantum computers are capable of. I've seen enough nonsense about quantum machine learning for a lifetime. Also, there is the issue of when practical quantum computers will be built.
Thanks. I know some complexity theory, but not enough. (Enough to know it wasn't gonna be my thing).