I had some downtime so I decided to make myself a new set of dinnerware based on The Willow Pattern.
Those are great! Do they actually exist or is that just a mockup? (It looks a bit too pixel-perfect to be a photograph of real dinnerware, so…) If they do (or will) exist, how do you go about making them?
“I always remember having this fight with a random dude who claimed that ‘straight white men’ were the only true innovators. His prime example for this was the computer… the computer… THE COMPUTER!!! THE COM-PU-TER!!!
Alan Turing - Gay man and ‘father of computing’ Wren operating Bombe - The code cracking computers of the 2nd world war were entirely run by women Katherine Johnson - African American NASA mathematician and ‘Human computer’ Ada Lovelace - arguably the 1st computer programmer”
Also Margaret Hamilton - NASA computer scientist who put the first man on the moon - an as-yet-unmatched feet of software engineering, here pictured beside the full source of that computer programme. #myhero
Grace Hopper - the woman that coined the term “bug”
Grace Hopper did more than coin the term “bug”. She invented the first program linker in the early 1950s, for the UNIVAC I. A program linker translates instructions from one language to another (for example, numerical codes that represent instructions translated to machine code that computers can read), which is the very foundation of how computer’s operate independently. she also pulled a steve rogers and tried to enlist in the military a bunch of times and was denied. then, an exception was made for her when she joined the navy reserves, and she ended up serving for over 40 years (half of which was active duty). she retired from the navy Rear Admiral Grace Hopper. she was born in NYC in 1906. Grace Hopper was a fucking badass.
also computing was typically a job for women (many of whom were black women that made incredible contributions) back in the day, so it’s absolutely fucking wild that straight white men think they are the foundation of computer innovation. men PUSHED women out and took the credit.
Reblogging to do what the failed education system never did.
Reblogging to do
what the failed education
system never did.
Beep boop! I look for accidental haiku posts. Sometimes I mess up.
Also, just about every computerized device outside of desktops is running ARM chips now. Your phone, your keyboard, your car, your watch. Basically everything.
And ARM was primarily designed by Sophie Wilson, a trans woman.
Please don’t forget Hedy Lamarr. Screwed over by the US government. She helped develop spread spectrum communication, which in part led to the development of WiFi and Bluetooth tech.
And don’t forget Lynn Conway! She invented superscalar operation, which is used by nearly every CPU in existence, and was fired from IBM with her contributions to the state of the art violently erased when she came out as trans.
[ID text of a Twitter thread by "Housing 4 All is Hot" (@ahouse4all) posted 8:44PM UTC 20 August 2022:
Even if you don’t think vaccines and autism are related … these are some staggering numbers!
YES THESE NUMBERS ARE STAGGERING I WOULD ALSO POSIT THAT HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THESE IMAGES AND TEXT ALSO
12/10 best response to this idiocy.
correlation does not equal causation dumbasses
Those are the best graphs ever.
I have seen similar posts, but this one has the best charts.
“Is this mountain range affecting the murder rate?” Best response.
When ice cream sales rise, so do rates of drownings. This does not mean ice cream makes you drown.
I still don't understand the halting problem
Pretty much every presentation of the halting problem I've ever read or heard pretty much represents the idea of halt-opposite as if it can take itself as an input and the whole proof is that if it does do that it cannot compute whether it will halt or not because if it halts it won't and vice versa
But like, halt-opposite takes in an input, and its output depends on that input.
We can describe the output of a machine (whether it halts or not) as depending on the input, meaning that the output cannot be computed independently, obviously. This linear dependency of input -> output means that halt can never just take in the code, it needs some sort of input for the inner machine to run. So our halt machine takes in n+1 arguments, n is the amount of arguments the inner machine takes and the 1 is the actual inner machine.
If we try to pass halt-opposite into itself, it means that the upper halt needs to take in 2 arguments, "inner halt-opposite" and inner halt-opposite's argument. Halt-opposite's output depends on inner halt-opposite's output which depends on inner halt-opposite's input.
We can never try to run halt-opposite in itself simply because it will always depend on something else, is what I'm trying to say.
And I think that's a more elegant proof than just pretending that halt-opposite can evaluate itself? I think this demonstrates that the halting problem is not an impossible problem because it's self-referential in some way but because it simply cannot possibly be modeled. It's not even a problem, our little dependency chain shows that the idea of a "machine that can compute if any machine will halt and do the opposite" is not actually defined, since the halting of a machine depends on more that the machine itself.
I'm pretty sure I'm missing something significant, which is why I'm posting my thoughts, it's just that this is a thought that no amount of independently reading about this problem has resolved. Maybe it's worth actually trying to find the original paper on this, I'm suspecting that vulgarization of the problem is what led to this chain of thought
I'm not 100% sure on this so don't quote me (not my field of math) but my impression is that you have a function h(s) with input a 0-ary function s and output a boolean. h(s) outputs True if s() halts and False if s() doesn't halt. Then you can define a 0-ary g() such that g() loops forever if h(g) and stops if ~h(g).
So I don't think the intention is to develop a halt-opposite in general and self-evaluate it, but rather you have an inputless function that is a halt-opposite on itself alone.
The intention is to be a proof-by-contradiction that the question of whether something halts or not is incomputable. It’s not meant to be an actual function that can be implemented, the whole point is that it’s demonstrates why such a thing can’t be implemented.
The arity of the function doesn’t actually matter.
the thing about "techbro" as a term is people use it both to describe RMS and other hard line open source FOSS evangelist types and also the people working at megacorps who build all the surveillance shit the first group absolutely despises and wants to not exist, so at that point it basically just means "person who works with technology (by which I mean computers) and has opinions I don't like about it"
and at that point it uses all usefulness as a label because the only unifying characteristic of people who have opinions I don't like is that they have opinions I don't like. there is very little you can say that is both true of Elon Musk and RMS that has anything to do with their technological opinions, so lumping them together doesn't do much good
Techbros absolutely should only refer to the hypercapitalist type; FOSSbros exhibit entirely different sets of pathological behavior.
And also just because someone works in tech doesn’t make them a techbro! There needs to be a willing obliviousness to what people outside of tech want/need/experience, a belief that the fact they can write code makes them superior to others (regardless of whether their code is even any good - it usually isn’t), and usually a total disregard for how people are even going to use the things they’re building.
FOSSbros have a different set of aspects:
2,121,566 people are not Amanda and counting!
We’ll find you Amanda.
this has almost 11 million notes what is this
I’ve never seen this post once in 10 years on this site
I’ve never even heard of this before tho??? Wtf??????????
oh my god, I didn’t think there were any surviving versions of this post left
For those who weren’t around in the Deep Lore times, this is one of the relics of the editable post era. This post has THE SINGLE HIGHEST NOTES of ANY post on this site, bar none, but with more than a dozen variations. Every single post you’ve ever seen with more than 3 million notes has been a different version of this one.
This is the “Dean’s Gym Shorts” post. This is the Flubber post. This is the original “Reblog if you support gay people” post. it was ALL of them. before half the site got nuked, it had even more notes than it has now - at one point, well over 15 million, and that was years ago.
This, with no exaggeration, is the ONE TRUE heritage post
Have we found Amanda yet?
abalidoth
quantroup
The concept of the Linux brand character being a penguin came from Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux. According to Jeff Ayers, Linus Torvalds had a "fixation for flightless, fat waterfowl" and Torvalds claims to have contracted "penguinitis" after being nibbled by a little penguin on a visit to the National Zoo & Aquarium, Canberra, Australia,[2] joking that the disease "makes you stay awake at nights just thinking about penguins and feeling great love towards them".[3]
linus torvalds posted about being bitten by a penguin and the tux penguin logo started as a linux kernel mailing list in-joke about it?
oh this is actually quite cute
![[Cueball holds a cellphone. Black Hat is sitting at a desk with a laptop.] Cueball: Another huge study found no evidence that cell phones cause cancer. What was the W.H.O. thinking? Black Hat: I think they just got it backward. [Black Hat turns towards Cueball in an unframed panel, holding the laptop with one hand by the upper edge of the screen. Cueball is not visible.] Cueball: Huh? Black Hat: Well, take a look. [There is a plot of total cancer incidence and cell phone users. Cancer rises from 1970 to 1990, then stays relatively steady. Cell phone use rises from roughly 1984, and steeply after 1990, to the present.] Cueball: You're not... There are so many problems with that. Black Hat: Just to be safe, until I see more data I'm going to assume cancer causes cell phones.](https://64.media.tumblr.com/2384df5daa67f66194cea7f9194db03d/5dc9c5bf1199f3a6-cc/s1280x1920/dd5438ac7bc3c9576fc401a5ee007b0b06d96a5e.png)
