robryk @robryk@qoto.org
I enjoy things around information theory (and data compression), complexity theory (and cryptography), read hard scifi, currently work on weird ML (we'll see how it goes), am somewhat literal minded and have approximate knowledge of random things. I like when statements have truth values, and when things can be described simply (which is not exactly the same as shortly) and yet have interesting properties.
I live in the largest city of Switzerland (and yet have cow and sheep pastures and a swimmable lake within a few hundred meters of my place :)). I speak Polish, English, German, and can understand simple Swiss German and French.
If in doubt, please err on the side of being direct with me. I very much appreciate when people tell me that I'm being inaccurate. I think that satisfying people's curiosity is the most important thing I could be doing (and usually enjoy doing it). I am normally terse in my writing and would appreciate requests to verbosify.
I appreciate it if my grammar or style is corrected (in any of the languages I use here).
Joined Nov 2020
Yup, and there's no good way to handle "everyone is taking into account how the system works", because if there were, the resulting system would break the Arrow's impossibility theorem.
A colleague of mine btw did write up a computation of that kind for most recent parliamentary elections in Poland, but the point there was mostly to compare voting in different constituencies (you may vote in any constituency in those elections, as long as you actually arrange for that slightly ahead of time and appear in a voting location in that constituency).
If you have some estimate of likely results (in the form of a probability distribution over vote counts -- likely you'd assume an uncorrelated multivariate Gaussian or something similar), then it's fair to say that you can estimate the direct effect of your vote: compute the probability (as a function of what vote you cast) that your vote will be the deciding one, and pick the vote where you like that distribution the most.
In places that have a threshold this usually means voting for a party that has a significant chance of being above the threshold, sadly. Apart from this it often doesn't align with voting for larger parties (nor even, in FPTP, parties that are very likely to get at least one seat in your constituency: voting for a party that's expected to be just below 1 seat is better than for a part that's expected to be above 1 and well below 2, if you like both equally).
Nie orientuję się w cenach, ale wiem, że różnice między kosztami rekonstrukcji z własnego ścięgna i ze ścięgna od nieboszczyka mogą być nawet ~1/4 (gdzie to pierwsze jest tańsze). (IIRC generalnie u ludzi po czterdziestce zwykle preferuje się przeszczep od nieboszczyka, a przed od siebie.)
I wonder whether you'd have recommendation on how to address letters to someone you can only try to guess the gender of in German. (I recently misgendered a fellow from our road construction office and still feel slightly bad about it.)
includes joke
You mean you'll send them letters to educate them on the issue? :)
I know about (at least some) problems caused by tilling, but I don't really know what's a better approach than crop rotation (other than pausing between plantings). A skim of wiki didn't help, so can you recommend something to read about it?
Did you ever observe them debugging something they were unfamiliar with? (I'm asking because this is the ~everyday software engineer activity that requires IMO most evidence weighing, pruning of hypotheses, and choosing what evidence to try gathering.)
BTW I'm somewhat surprised by the ratio of compsci/compeng-graduated colleagues you have, but that might be just a bias caused by my personal circumstances.
not a subpost, but a musing
I think this is an area where lack of shared knowledge can bite. If one thinks that others are not sad about the same state, one can for example assume others don't find it sad, think that they're different, and feel more lonely, or one can try to establish whether they actually think they're both true and bad, which usually makes others sad. (Obviously these are not the only two choices, and the outcomes do not necessarily follow from them -- esp. when one is more skilled at interacting with the kind of people one has around.)
@whitequark Dangerous as in "capable of creating danger for others" or "nonnegligibly likely to create danger for me or mine"?
@mawhrin Is this important for protection of oneself (assuming no other users on the instance) or for more reasons too?
Have you heard how unlikely it is for two bombs to be on the same plane? It stands to reason that you should always bring a bomb with you, so that your plane is less likely to have a bomb that will actually explode on it.
You use proofs by contradiction implicitly quite often (e.g. "either p or not p" requires the use of proof by contraduction to prove). The branch of logics that recommend what can be proven without p.b.c. doesn't match the intuition you're going for: it excludes everything that requires p.b.c. somewhere internally.
I think you're going for the notion of not being able to imagine what since intermediate statements in the proof mean for simple examples. That is generally harder e.g. for proofs to that try to show that something is impossible, regardless of whether they involve p.b.c. in any way.
drugs, drug induced state
Modulo the murder on top it's the default state for quite some people (and it's really nice when one manages to find an environment where that's common).
What would you do if you wanted to explain but wasn't sure if the person wanted an explanation?
Also, both people and trains need to go both ways. People can't take their cars on the train, so they will go both or neither way. Trains can't teleport, so serving a handful of people on the way back is better than serving none.
@delroth Hm. I need to figure out how crevasses form, because the mechanism I suspected (tearing due to nonuniform motion) would be liable to create thin bridges with potentially indistinctive appearance (the surface would be just slightly lowered). So either the mechanism is different, or the nonuniform flow is constrained in ways I didn't consider.
@delroth Oh, the other photos seemed as if they were taken while walking over the ice, so I assumed lack of such.
Huh, doesn't it have crevasses then?
Would you say that learning to debug efficiently usually requires learning evidence-based reasoning along the way?
I enjoy things around information theory (and data compression), complexity theory (and cryptography), read hard scifi, currently work on weird ML (we'll see how it goes), am somewhat literal minded and have approximate knowledge of random things. I like when statements have truth values, and when things can be described simply (which is not exactly the same as shortly) and yet have interesting properties.
I live in the largest city of Switzerland (and yet have cow and sheep pastures and a swimmable lake within a few hundred meters of my place :)). I speak Polish, English, German, and can understand simple Swiss German and French.
If in doubt, please err on the side of being direct with me. I very much appreciate when people tell me that I'm being inaccurate. I think that satisfying people's curiosity is the most important thing I could be doing (and usually enjoy doing it). I am normally terse in my writing and would appreciate requests to verbosify.
I appreciate it if my grammar or style is corrected (in any of the languages I use here).
Joined Nov 2020
