If you have to compile a high level language L to wasm you could follow many paths, for example L to C, C to wasm, or L to Lisp, Lisp to wasm. I should suggest to create a graph in which vertices are languages and edges are labeled with the efficiency of translation. This way one could use graph theory to select the best path. This is only the ground idea. At a second step one could study what features of languages are main ingredients of that efficiency and design a middleware high level language M for the translation to wasm: L -> M -> wasm. Or weight the translation using a vector of features (concurrency, speed, bugs reports, etc) and select the path that gives the best result.
L -> M1 -> M2 -> ... wasm,where Mi are selected by the specific features used for a concrete program in L.
All computations of efficiency should discount or take into account the use of specific libraries. For instance, numpy with python makes the speed difference between c and python smaller.
All theses studies present many correlations between herpes and Alzheimers. Perhaps Judea Pearl methods and books could be used to develep medical studies. What kind of experiments is expected to have the better result for the minimum cost?
I should like to know if this kind of approach is being used nowadays. Recall that Judea Perl idea is not only to analyze current data but to design experiments to estimate conditional probability with experiment designed to test ideas.
I imagine that books could be enhanced with a virtual reality game that presents you the main characters and the place where the book develops the plot. So the line between books and virtual games becomes slimmer.
As another Spaniard I agree with you. But degrees about tourism can get you a job here. As I am learning English, I would suggest: Use "at length",don't repeat finish so many times, finish (complete, get, achieve) a degree, become pointless (become less valuable, worthless),
which (that) is what I now best. About grade inflation in the US: http://www.gradeinflation.com/,
No problem, since I'm learning Japanese while living in Tokyo I've lost quite a bit of English. Repetition is your friend here as it's the only way to be able to speak with 90+% of the people and for them to understand. Thanks for the tips, improved it a bit :)
Thanks for being so open, I know I shouldn't give suggestions but watch out for karoshi culture, overwork and burnout, surely you should be able to cope with all that.
I followed your advice and read chapter 9 of Rationaly from Ai to Zombies. This chapter title is "Expecting Short Inferential Distances", my summary is that if you are using a scientific language and your audience is not used to it then you should explain basic terminology. So from this piece I should estimate content with low density of information.
"I took a speed-reading course and read War and Peace in twenty minutes. It involves Russia." -- Woody Allen
I mean, yes, Yudkowsky is pretty verbose, but that's not what I'd call a super-accurate summary and there's definitely more in that chapter than your one-sentence summary.
(It's about understanding as well as knowledge, and in so far as it's about knowledge it's not only about terminology or only about science. There's some evo-psych-y speculation on why it's so easy to forget that inferential distances are there, which may or may not be correct but (1) is interesting in its own right and (2) helps to fit the notion of "inferential distance" into the reader's overall model of the world, rather than just giving specific instructions like "explain basic terminology". There's the concrete and I think useful suggestion that when you encounter a failure of communication you probably need to back off further than you are initially inclined to. There's a concrete example (appeals to "simplicity") of the sort of thing that once you've been immersed in, say, scientific thinking for a while becomes second nature to you and that you may not think to explain -- and, please note, it's not primarily a matter of terminology. There's an important warning of a failure mode you may encounter when trying to take inferential distances into account -- which seems like it should be obvious, but I've seen people fall into it often enough.)
[Note: Those things are on the Less Wrong page from which the chapter is derived. I haven't read the ebook, and it's possible that some stuff was trimmed out.]
There's also a bit of irony in complaining "this could have been explained much more briefly" about a chapter whose whole point is to warn about how communication can fail unexpectedly when you don't take the time to explain things slowly and apparently redundantly.
I think that there more interesting examples to ilustrate the fact that communication require to explain the basic to those that don't work in the field. Any good teacher knows that you have to motivate students and explain things adapting your classes to the knowledge of your students. Also, those who sell services or products know very well how to communicate the value of products. Perhaps some empathy is necessary for communication, but chapter 9 sound voiceless to me.
Yudkowsky is a polarizing writer. Some people love his writing; I do not. There's the occasional nugget of wisdom but I find his style so irritating and pretentious that it's not worth suffering through.
Scott Alexander (Slatestarcodex) is related and more readable if verbose, but less focused on that groundwork material of (so-called) rationality.
Thanks, I just read in his blog the post "beware the man of one study". Discussing if rising minimum wage hurts the economy give rise to 270 comments. I agree with the conclusion: Even if someone give you overwhelming evidence in favor of a certain point of view just wait and see if the opposite side has equally overwhelming evidence. My example: This coin came 7000 times heads so almost always gives head. Just wait and count how many times it came tails.
It sounds nice, but reading reviews allow me to jump and select interesting stuff. Perhaps a speech system enhanced with a way to select what kind of content to jump to, something more that a jumpable toc.
Learning English: They kill out of need, out of seems to me more like without. They kill without need. In Spanish we should say they kill because of need. How "out of" became because?
Anyway, if you are out of luck I hope it is not because you are lucky.
Well... "out of necessity" is actually an idiom, meaning "because you have to". Since need and necessity are very similar in meaning I assume this is a correct statement. But I'm not a native English speaker this may of course be a common mistake.
Since we are trying to learn the tree language, I hope people don't get annoyed if I wonder about what is the mental state that converts "out of" into "because".
If necessity was a generator, a vector or force for movements or actions, then I could understand that use of "out of". Out of indicates the result produced by a force, algorithm or oracle. But I consider necessity not as a generator or force but as a passive state. Hence I wonder what is the mechanism for this use. If we collapse the concepts of passive and active then I think language get corrupted and poissoned. Analogies are not fruitful because they go far beyong the logical ground. I believe that if you are going to get something out of a state then that state should be a generator. I don't know if what I am trying to say is sound but I sharply feel the unsoundness of linguistic non logically generated derivations
There is a great explanation of the difference between 'because of' and 'out of' in an answer to this question on English Language Learners SE [1]:
> You should use "because of" in cases like this when the thing in question is the catalyst for something to happen, and use "out of" when the thing in question metaphorically "gives rise" to something else.
I always assumed out of necessity idiom means no other choice. And because of would mean I have choices and this is the justification for the one I made.
For the purpose of the comment "out of need" felt a lot more appropriate for an animal that kills.
Perhaps originally this use of "out of" indicates a mental state in which change is promoted, in which you fight against an hostile passive state, so you bootstrap from your needs.
Perhaps that kind of mental state could be used for sentiment analysis. The probability of that use of "out of" increases when you are in a mental state that promotes flipping active and passive states. For example, when you not any longer want to cope with your actual state, going to extremes: you put yourself in a fight for survival state that promotes a revolution by beating the slavery chains.
If you want a rationalization for that idiom, think of a state machine: they are in a state of need, therefore they kill. Note also how acting "out of" does not necessarily imply transitioning away, e.g. company x operating out of city y.
The grammatical nuance between out of need and out of luck (nice find btw) would be doing (out of need) vs being (out of luck): you might win out of luck, and later lose because you are out of luck. Wastefully spend out of wealth, then be out of wealth, and so on.
I think it’s somewhat reasonable if you interpret it “the killing came out of need”. As in, the animal had a need (to eat, or defend themselves) and from that need came killing. So they “kill out of need”. Not sure if that helps!
(Also, fwiw, you could also say “they kill because of need” or “they kill because they need to”, so because works in English as well)
