Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | dschiptsov's comments login

Why people are so stupid? No one would say that "Russians" wrote this or that shitpost. What they did - they developed and successfully used "innovative" techniques of producing and spreading catchy memes along with trolling and shitposting into any meaningful discussion on popular public forums. These methods nowadays are used on a "factory scale". The famous "Troll factories" were a great success.

Basically, it is a next level of jamming techniques used against western radio stations in old times - active trolling instead of passive jamming, using paid people instead of dumb noise generators.

What Russians developed is very efficient (optimized, if you wish) set of methods to manipulate the minds of idiots, to implant naive, unverified (and unquestioned by wast majority of idiots) assumptions and false premises, in forms of emotionally charged but primitive memes (textual or graphical) - "Shillary will start WW3". Fucking degenerates.

In the same way all the Russian media propaganda is organized nowadays - meme-like framed "news", tailored to the vocabulary and mentality of uneducated, primitive majority, along with marketing-like targeting. You do not have to have a PhD to do that.

What happened is that almost everyone else nowadays are re-using these simple ready-made methods. All this is nothing but virus-like meme contagion, plus applied manipulative psychology of advertising on internet scale. That's all. No KGB agents or anything like that.

How a third-world, corruption-ridden country with stagnant economy could be so powerful? It obviously wasn't. The cause is these "information viruses" (memes) spreading through human stupidity. Russians didn't invent them, of course, only used on a large scale.


wouldn't symbolic links be more appropriate?


Brexit, Trump, 86% popularity of Putin, mass media, TV shows, Javascript - what other evidences are needed?


Python3 as default dialect!


What exactly is wrong with this particular comment?)


It does not contribute anything meaningful to the discussion on the submitted link.


It does. It emphasizes that this particular guide encourages use of Python3, instead of holding onto legacy, which means that the author understands programming languages basics or at lest knows which semantic unification has been done to make the language less inconsistent, hence more beautiful.


To make it positive and to amplify it (as a side-effect).

BTW, "error" is a misleading term - it communicates some fault, at least in the common sense. Distance would be much better term.

So, "squared distance" makes much more sense, because negative distance is nonsense.


Well it will only amplify values > 1.


That's not correct. Even though the magnitudes of the value in isolation shrinks, the relative magnitudes are still amplified which is what matters.

Consider values 1/2 and 1/4: in the original space it's double but in the squared space it becomes 1/4 and 1/16 so the difference is 4x. Also relevantly if you compare eg 0.9 and 1, the gap between them is amplified after squaring.


Those values aren't compared individually, they are summed to calculate the deviation, the result of that sum will be reduced if the values are < 1.


That's a compelling case for why we should not use "distance", because distance cannot be negative, but the error term can.

Just look at bog-standard linear regressions, say Y_i = m X_i + b + ε_i. It makes no sense to call the ε_i terms "distance".


In theory, one should take a look at web.py and flask first.. It will teach essentialism and minimalism (web.py) and doing the right thing in a right way (all of them and Python in general).


They should also try to find evidence of grapes is crappy wines to which a cork is too expensive.


Crappy wine is made from crappy grapes, or good grapes handled poorly, not fake grapes. There is no reason to use fake grapes because there is so much supply of real grapes (see "wine lake"). And most wine is not meant to be aged for a long time so there is no reason to use a cork and risk cork taint.


Better wine comes with a screw cap because there is no risk of corkage. New Zealand makes some fantastic "new-world" whites, and NZ doesn't use corks.

Crappy wine comes in a bladder or tetrapak.


Where on Google Maps are these vast aloe vera plantations which are required to produce these millions of liters of products? There must be hectares and hectares, visible from the outer space.


Not sure about the locations, but you'll find images about quite big plantations if you do Google image search for: aloe vera plantations


The hypothesis that natural language acquisition "restructures our memories" is promising one. We cannot recall what has been stored using a different "encoding". There are no associated labels (which is what words are) attached to earlier experiences, so "search" returns nothing, or something we mistakenly attributed to the prior-language experiences.


Life is indistinguishable from physics.


Well, I seem to have no trouble with the distinction.


Well, I just got tired of hipster bullshit and memes.

There is the only one way to prove something - it is to show that there are logical truth of all the statements and implication all the way back to the starting assumptions. Students learn this in an undergrads AI class, leave alone the basics of mathematical logic.

This shit is full of gaps in logic, just a pile of memes upon memes (dark energy, my ass!) and bullshit all the way down. Just a single flaw in logic anywhere in the chain of statements is enough to throw away all the crap. A single failed assertion.

Things which are not confirmed by independently replicated experiments are beliefs not facts. Socially constructed memes. The people who speculate about unproven sets of beliefs are sectarians, not scientists.

This and similar bullshit is no different from the cosmology on the walls of Egyptian pyramids or the stories about angels pushing the planets to keep them moving on its orbits.


> "The people who speculate about unproven sets of beliefs are sectarians, not scientists." -@dschiptsov

The entire realm of astrophysics and particle physics would beg to differ with you. Just because we don't yet know the maths, or truths, behind the studies does not relegate the science to the realm of sectarians or religious figures.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: