

How to Construct 100% Bug-Free Software (Pay Attention, Toyota) - miriam
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2010/03/how-to-construct-100-bug-free-software.html

======
ajuc
If I understand correctly this means we should just write small program that
can learn which reactions to given stimuli of the program are good, and which
aren't, based on history of signals and responses of the program that are
known to be good.

While interesting, I doubt it will do much to make programs more correct.

Somebody has to tell the program that this new reaction is good, so you should
learn it as an exception to the older rules, or it is wrong, and we have found
a bug.

------
pook
I am starting to think this blog is an elaborate Markov-generated hoax.

That said, I've often wondered what Sokal is doing nowadays.

~~~
miriam
You're wrong. There are serious people working, as I write, on implementing
the author's vision.

~~~
pook
"Mathematicians notwithstanding, a computer is a class of automaton known as a
behaving machine. As such, it must not be seen as a function calculator that
takes input arguments and returns an answer. It should be seen as belonging to
the category of machines like brains and neural networks" from
[http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2010/02/computer-
scientists...](http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2010/02/computer-scientists-
created-parallel.html)

I am sure there is meaning in this, but I am not sure it is a meaning that
yields readily to rational thought. Hence my classification of the blog as
noise.

~~~
miriam
You are being disingenuous or purposefully obtuse since the author explains
what he means in the same sentence. It's not rocket science.

~~~
pook
<http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm>

Do I need to spell out the similarities with Time Cube, or enumerate John
Baez's Crackpot Index in an oddly self-referential strange loop?

It is indeed not rocket science. Or much of any science.

edit: "We are all accustomed to believe that everything is made of something.
We are taught that matter consists of molecules and that molecules are made of
atoms which are themselves made of even smaller components. This line of
reasoning makes sense initially but, as seen below, it cannot be sustained."
if you think I am merely being obtuse.

~~~
miriam
You are worse than obtuse. You are plain dishonest. You are picking stuff up
out of context in order to appear to make a valid disparaging point but you
are just being an a*hole. And you know it.

~~~
pg
Would you two please stop?

~~~
tsally
It's time for this I think: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1142045>.

Personal reprimands from you are effective in snapping otherwise reasonable
people out of the mindset that sometimes results from anonymity, but it's just
a stop-gap measure. I know you already know this, but it's worth pointing out.

Tangential anecdote: the last 10 or so uncivil comments I've read have been
from throwaway accounts and accounts with small post counts/karma. I suspect
most of these accounts are proxies for more active ones. Not sure if this
metric can be leveraged in some way without producing too many false
positives. Using machine learning to enforce civility is kind of ironic
actually. Still, might be worth investigating.

~~~
pg
I'm going to start trying things fairly soon. I'm just too busy with YC right
now.

