log☇︎
213600+ entries in 1.706s
MolokoDesk: so you get this quick and dirty code that's kind of awful in such a case.
MolokoDesk: heh.there are conflicts of interest having to do with actually having to write and maintain a program. Many developers have no long term relationship with the results of their work, so they're concerned with optmizing return on their time with a customer they're probably only going to work with once.
punkman: bounce, and people that know a lot of the theory tend to come up with shitty schemas
MolokoDesk: there are a lot of high level skills involved that wouldn't be reflected in the language reference card.
bounce: plenty people using "sql" turn out to've little inklink of the theory backing the thing and so aren't very good at using it what it's for--expressing relations between data. then you end up with a glorified key/value store, which is a waste of all that complexity. such people think mysql is a good idea.
MolokoDesk: yeah, I'm kind of a math head, SQL looks sort of like COBOL or something. it works.
MolokoDesk: and a buncha other stuff.
MolokoDesk: it's probably a turing-complete language, though I've never used it that way.
MolokoDesk: I've been doing it for a long time off and on. since like uh... 1980s
MolokoDesk: anyway, I don't wanna spam a bunch of newb sqlite3 agony here. Thanks for the suggestion regarding a new tool.
MolokoDesk: it's like it thinks it's opening a new database with that name and zeros the file.
MolokoDesk: (well. so far none of the command line commands work in sqlite on a linux box with RatingSystem.db listed as the "main" database. won't show the tables etc.
punkman: but you should try sqlite when you get a chance, it's good stuff
MolokoDesk: but yeah, there's the data on a platter.
MolokoDesk: something can be easy but take a week to get working.
MolokoDesk: yeah, writing all the SQLishness to query that database for a few people seems overkill.
MolokoDesk: it's like a 20 line program if even that.
MolokoDesk: the webserver only has to open sockets and fork() a process occasionally.
MolokoDesk: make a tiny webserver combined with a very limited IRC bot.
MolokoDesk: making a resident agent that sit's in IRC and relays requests coming in over HTTP to gribble would work.
MolokoDesk: ok. one scenario I was talking about a few minutes ago was someone vandalizes the bot and has their rating lowered below access threshold, but they're still trusted by deedBot and deedBot keeps getting vandalized.
punkman: MolokoDesk: you can keep a local copy of gribble's database, update once a day or something
MolokoDesk: (talking about feeding humanities into a computer and creating an ontology)
jurov is looking forward to the fateful day when someone suceeds in feeding of all humanitites to a computer and creating an ontology
bounce: but that doesn't change the basic fact that if you actually do say exactly what you mean you still typically have a better chance of getting the point across
bounce: sure it's a lot of reading and sure there are a lot of people saying confused things, perhaps even deliberately confusing issues.
bounce: law is a good case in point for what xmj was saying; you need to be very precise in what you say. a misplaced comma can easily cost millions of dollars.
moriarty: when i was involved in finance, my amount of reading went up hundred-fold, sure, there was a lot of overlap, but they cover different situations, and it's a bit like chess, you read all the possible moves and what you can do from there
bounce: yes, but you're using that as a load of rationalising crap for your own shoddy use of language. call it somewhat self-serving.
moriarty: the whole of philosophy is a continuous conversation dating back to Aristotle
moriarty: and to drill down what those concepts are about precisely is to have a conversation extending to years
moriarty: because every concept representable by a phrase or term in philosophy has books written supporting it
bounce: even so, you're making a right hash of things
moriarty: so it seems imprecise, but every different word has a slightly different implication
moriarty: when you transcend one discipline with a concept, and apply it in another discipline, that's creativity in a nutshell
xmj: sex is nothing more than a theory, and then people fuck
moriarty: xmj, but in short, philosophies are nothing more than gedanken experiments designed to hypothesize what would happen in a given closed loop system, and then society tests them
moriarty: when you make a joke, you don't want to explain the entire innuendo and corresponding nuances associated to be precise about your joke
xmj: stop being a dickhead.
xmj: you know, you're a dickhead.
moriarty: xmj, let's try a little credo, i see ideologies as part of a continuum, many of the questions i am interested in lies in the intersection, i tend to think in terms of probability distributions rather than dichotomous epistemic categories
fluffypony: Funner is not a word
xmj: moriarty: devil's advocate requires taking someone else's ideology, putting it into a jail/sandbox, examining it
moriarty: xmj, because the mind is a playground
xmj: why develop a philosophy if you don't believe in it?
moriarty: that's how it is with technical analysis vis-a-vis ##econometrics :-) heh
xmj: bounce: if you're not perceived as believing in your own philosophy, you'll a) not sell it and b) be considered hypocrite
moriarty: with fundamentals, it becomes glaringly obvious how to apply and optimise a fit-for-purpose invention
bounce: equate them and you'd be equating brazilian slums to downtown london or something. it's a little confused.
bounce: in comparison and contrast, religion typically starts with teaching you about a building constructed aeons ago, likely by confused shepherds high on whatever it was they were smoking, and requires you to live by its tenets. quite possibly at the peril of your life, if not at least at the peril of your eternal soul.
BingoBoingo: How bored as a lens grinder did SPinoza have to be to develop his system?
moriarty: what does that tell you? not a lot
moriarty: BingoBoingo, sure, or that a bitcoin trader profited
bounce: that still doesn't require belief. let me give you a simile.
moriarty: the second part of Godel's exposition states that under proper conditions, a strong formal system cannot prove its consistency
moriarty: and these are a result from a non-isomorphic model as proven by Lowenheim-Skolem in first order logic
moriarty: tell me in a one-liner what you think the first incompleteness theorem is espousing
bounce: building on axioms goes like "IFF these are true THEN it follows that...", bit of a difference from "these things ARE TRUE regardless of what reality says BECAUSE GOD TOLD ME SO"
BingoBoingo: There was a great gulf between Euclid and Pythagorus
moriarty: BingoBoingo, what do you think all the axioms require in a philosophical model if not faith?
bounce: for one because religion tends to contain a lot of "shut up and do what I say"
bounce: there's a bunch busily proving you wrong there
moriarty: philosophy underpins constitutions, and if you set up your nation proper, then you will get a thriving economic powerhouse
moriarty: xmj, the model of self-reliance is a good model to have, it dispels away with all the illnesses and perversions that comes with a more fatalistic view of society, think conspiracy theorists, suicide bombers, basically people who perceive their own destinies are unchangeable and thus resort to such desperate measures or justification of reality in order to make life more livable
moriarty: bounce, the perception that comes with what constitutes a dumb girl and an intellectual girl is more deceptive than first sight
moriarty: xmj, well if calvinism is attributable as a predecessor to capitalism then i don't see what's so bad about it
bounce: think your definition of "not dumb" is a bit too narrow. there's such a thing as kinds of intelligence (we know this inasmuch as we know what intelligence is anyway, which we don't, not really), and what you're rooting for is "social intelligence", something girls tend to be better with than boys
moriarty: and academic mastery is trivial at this point :) so she need not flaunt it because well, flaunting your intellectual superiority is a surefire way to arouse envy and be at odds with having social grace
moriarty: sure, on outward appearance she appears dumb because she likes all the conventional things that a popular girl likes :) hair straighteners, mixers, proms, but i value such a girl who can master social situations and get people to do what she wants implicitly
moriarty: and a girl who is confident in her intelligence need not always be so nerdy about it, i.e. she can act like a normal human being without telling me about the intricacies of quantum field theory and the fundamental tradeoffs between continuous/discretisation of spacetime continuum binded together by the graviton or loop quantum gravity
xmj: it's about creating a Legacy.
moriarty: bounce, heh there's a difference between being dumb, and being dumb
bounce: some think dumb women are easier to handle and therefore a surer way to success
moriarty: defining your own success metrics means nothing in the face of being a top-ranked hustler in society
bounce: some think a few kids but a giant nest egg would serve them better
moriarty: bounce, evolution has a pretty standardised template on that
xmj: moriarty: everyone loves a good unicorn
moriarty: like that ever makes a difference when you're busy banging the broad
moriarty: brilliance in a super model
xmj: My plan is to become rich and marry a non-stupid model. :)
xmj: BingoBoingo: recently I read a paper on how English peers in the 14th through 16th century mated.
BingoBoingo: moriarty: Aristocracy is great, but... You've got to maintain a position in it. If you suck it doesn't matter that you're a Borgia.
BingoBoingo: The point is if you are a Hilton that sucks, you can make porn or Biodiesel.
moriarty: xmj, oh you want a more direct implication? invest in Boeing, CSC, Northrop Grumman, Booz, SAIC
xmj: bounce: that's a perfectly valid strategy
moriarty: bounce, well, i am not against genetic therapy, as long as it's a permanent change and not a superficial treatment
bounce: that's a false dichotomy and therefore rationalisation bullshit
moriarty: bounce, there's always a tradeoff between convenience and security/privacy never forget that
bounce: more specifically, the banking system is now so unavoidable (yet) and so privacy unfriendly that it's quickly becoming more of a hazard than a boon for the clients.
fluffypony: bounce: its because they were designed when ancient and crummy infrastructure was still a thinf
moriarty: so if you were a customer at a bank and you shopped at a departmental store, you could use such a card to settle your transactions
moriarty: and cards came about as a tabs based system between banks and departmental stores or oil companies
moriarty: sure, Visa and Mastercard are actually a consortium of banks that came together to merge their electronic funds transfer networks into one
moriarty: visa and mastercard rules as a duopoly
BingoBoingo: Looking at his last century and spz. a sense of humor... perhaps god lives in Spain's sewers?
BingoBoingo: * asciilifeform likes to suggest pondering theological implications of a glassed middle east << With sufficient yields can make spotting the oil easier
asciilifeform likes to suggest pondering theological implications of a glassed middle east
danielpbarron: how could I know such a thing?
BingoBoingo: In the courtroom, who doesn't want a pipe hitting member of the tribe on their team?
BingoBoingo: asciilifeform: More people want a Goy lawyer, but don't want an actual Goy. The actual goys tend to retreat to either left coast after law school.