I have a hard time believing Zuckerberg would purposely exclude himself from the conversation.
You know what's bizarre to me? Most US states are either one party consent or 2 party consent states. Meaning to record a conversation, at least one party must consent to the conversation being recorded.
So how does this not apply at all to private conversations online?
Windows still has the following annoyances
1. Advertisements for One Drive storage in windows explorer.
2. Advertisements for Candy Crush and other games in start menu.
3. Advertisements and nag prompts to try Edge browser when you attempt to download chrome or switch your default browser.
4. Collects lots of telemetry.
Yes, most of the above issues can be solved by digging into the settings and turning them off but they shouldn't exist in the first place.
Seems like its actually the studends being discriminated against. Students are always the low hanging fruit for these ideas, as they tend to be less thougutful and more impulsive, yet have just been granted full adulting powers before actually having the frame of refrence to use them.
- move technical skills and certifications to the bottom
- limit projects to top 3 relevant to job
- not a fan of about/technical quote part, but that's up to you. only comment about that is that it takes more than half the first page.
- "multiple startups": this tells me absolutely, nothing.
- it took me about 5 minutes to read your resume, and my conclusion is that you have 1 year experience as a software engineer. intern probably since it was 6 months. probably not accurate, but that's how it reads
- how come you have like 10 projects, but not a single one was from your "freelance developer" time?
- cto @softzen: skills->"anything", that's cute, but means nothing
Hi Carl, it's me, mathematics. I'm sure you recall that Turing machines (TMs) can be enumerated. ActorScript programs can also be enumerated, as can Direct Logic statements. I'm sure that you also have no problem with the basic concept of arithmetic encoding, nor with diagonalization widgets.
So, I'd like you to demonstrate that Direct Logic is, in fact, strictly more powerful than TMs, by constructing a DL program which cannot be computed by any TM.
Alternatively, I'd like you to prove the claim, "In Direct Logic, categorical theories of the Natural Numbers, Real Numbers, Ordinal Numbers, Set Theory,
the Lambda Calculus, and Actors are inferentially decidable, meaning that every true proposition is
provable and every proposition is either provable or disprovable," from your abstract. Specifically, I'd like you to construct the Direct Logic program which proves or disproves any given theorem. If that is too difficult, it will suffice to demonstrate a use of Direct Logic to answer a tough question about numbers; I humbly invite you to consider Goldbach's conjecture.
This is because the one-liner is actually (sorry SSC) a valid logical template, relying on assumptions about rule of law to draw a deductive inference. We can see the template itself:
"When X is illegal to possess under some jurisdiction's law, then the residents of that jurisdiction will be criminalized by their possession of X, and thus the only possessors of X in the jurisdiction will be criminals."
SSC probably doesn't like this one because it's definitional. People like to use "criminal" is a qualitative label for people who they feel have broken the law, but it is in fact definable as a quantitative label for people who have committed acts which are unacceptable as a fact of law.
We don't have to guess why Alexander disapproves the one-liner, as, after presenting the more thoughtful version, he writes:
"The original is a gotcha exactly because it doesn’t invite this level of analysis or even seem aware that it’s possible. It’s not saying “calculate the value of these parameters, because I think they work out in a way where this is a pretty strong argument against controlling guns”. It’s saying “gotcha!”."
You seem intelligent, so I'm going to drop you into the deep end. In category theory, a topos [0][1] (plural topoi) is a structure-place where logic can be done. Boolean logic corresponds to a particular topos. Actually, there are at least two topoi which do Boolean logic; one of them has the law of excluded middle, and another has the axiom of choice. [2]
And there's an infinite other number of topoi to choose from! Topoi can be custom-made to categorical specifications. We can insist that there are three truth values, and then we can use a topos construction to determine what the resulting logical connectives look like. [3]
Finally, there are logical systems which are too weak to have topoi. These are the fragments, things like regular logic [4] or Presburger arithmetic.
To address your second argument, why do we work in a world with Boolean logic? Well, classical computers are Boolean. Why? Because we invented classical computing in a time where Boolean logic was the dominant logic, and it fits together well with information and signal theory, and most importantly because we discovered a not-quite-magical method for cooking rocks in a specific way which creates a highly-compact semiconductor-powered transistor-laden computer.
Computers could be non-Boolean. If you think that the brain is a creative computer, then the brain's model of computation is undeniably physical and non-classical. It's possible, just different.
Oh, and even if Boolean logic is the way of the world, does that really mean that all propositions are true or false? Gödel, Turing, Quine, etc. would have a word with you!
You know what's bizarre to me? Most US states are either one party consent or 2 party consent states. Meaning to record a conversation, at least one party must consent to the conversation being recorded.
So how does this not apply at all to private conversations online?