Forgot your password?

Comment: Secure, yes, but Reliable? (Score 2) 179

by Myu (#46677639) Attached to: "Nearly Unbreakable" Encryption Scheme Inspired By Human Biology

Having a look at the paper, I can absolutely see that the encryption technique seems on the face of it to exceed computable solution. What I would need to be convinced about is the integrity of the communication; is what you get at the end of it guaranteed to be perfectly reflective of what you put into it?

(I can also see a sketch proof to the effect that the overall system can be made reliable with a probability approaching 1 - for arbitrarily small , but that's macroscopic behaviour. Microscopic, the system looks like it's capable of handling very regular systems very well, but given the reliance on Bayesian inference will drop reliability for anything with some very likely inputs and some less likely outputs.)

Comment: Re:MIT Can fix this or go away (Score 1) 106

by Myu (#46614477) Attached to: Aaron Swartz and MIT: The Inside Story
For your own good, you might be wise to stay out of this one. In much of this debate the role of industry in determining who should and should not have access to certain empowering resources gated by the universities, for the sake of creating and managing a skilled workforce, is seriously contentious. To step in and attempt to use your power to force through certain changes risks a serious lose of customer and social confidence.

Comment: Poor kid (Score 1) 106

by Myu (#46614427) Attached to: Aaron Swartz and MIT: The Inside Story

I'm not sure that guilt is the right response. His father is probably feeling absolutely destroyed by this, and I don't think he needs to be dragged through the muck by people looking for someone to blame.

Kids like Aaron are probably all over the place - young people who think the only moral thing to do in the world is to try to steal from those with power because of how that power has been so abused by its bearers. I don't blame them for thinking that way, but it's really sad that there's nobody other than disenfranchised radicals to give them a sense that there might be a better world on the horizon.

Institutions like the universities have it in them to give people hope for the future. I hope they try to take this as a chance to explore why people want to take from them and look at how to broaden access to their research to make it more widely accessible, rather than just closing up shop and keeping everything behind the locked doors of the academy.

Comment: RIP Philosophy of Mathematics (Score 2) 114

by Myu (#46413479) Attached to: Mathematicians Are Chronically Lost and Confused

If this is how things stand, then the Philosophy of Mathematics to date is a catastrophic failure. When there is no better methodology than "fumble around in the dark a bit until suddenly you're convinced" then the project of attempting to guide students in understanding maths has done no work at all.

Is this the fault of the philosophers or the mathematicians? I'm inclined to think that the philosophers have at least failed in their advocacy, if not in their actual subject.

Comment: Re:Just gonna say it (Score 1) 320

by Myu (#46290685) Attached to: E-Sports Gender Gap: 90+% Male

People are capable of perfection.

We call the demand that everything be perfect an anxiety disorder. If your claim is that sporting should have been perfected by now in a sense that Esports aren't, then I begin to wonder whether the dispute here is simply concerning a phenomenological difference in performance anxiety. That would make sense, since this isn't sport.

Comment: AKA: Mathematics (Score 1) 115

by Myu (#45303293) Attached to: Cornell Team Says It's Unified the Structure of Scientific Theories

Scientific models tend to express a common computational relationship. That's because we like to quantify things in scientific models, and perhaps unsurprisingly, we have a fairly standard paradigm for quantitative analysis in our mathematical algebraic, geometric and topological models.

The physicists here are discussing a feature of using information theory to generalize how certain fixed parameters can take values at different scales while still preserving most of their predictive structure. That's all.

Science journalists need to stop sensationalizing mathematically interesting results. This is a neat account of scale and pattern matching in applied mathematics, but it's not a "unified theory of all scientific theorising" any more than, say, Bayesian Inference is.

Comment: "Unveiling"? (Score 1) 401

by Myu (#45194325) Attached to: Physicist Unveils a 'Turing Test' For Free Will
This is a conceptual analysis, so I don't think "unveiling" is the right turn of phrase. "Proposing" is probably a much better line, and it may or may not be "Accepted" by people at a later stage. A conceptual analysis isn't something that you discover, nor is it something that you invent. The idea of someone taking credit for a conceptual analysis of free will just seems plainly silly.

Comment: Re: AI and robotics and jobs (Score 3, Insightful) 625

by Myu (#44849531) Attached to: 45% of U.S. Jobs Vulnerable To Automation

However robots can't do engineering. Robots can't think. AI is a pipe dream for at least the next century. We don't really understand how our own minds work. Computers are binary. Humans brains are at least trinary. Until a computer can do maybe then true ai is impossible.

Both Philosophically and Neuropsychologically, the idea that the mind is foundationally more complicated than some kind of Turing machine network is very much in dispute. We're getting loads done by treating the human mind mechanically and exploring its heuristics and biases or its structures and protocols in a mathematically classical background framework. The human brain is a massively complex device, and has techniques for understanding that there are some vaguenesses and gaps in the way we semantically process the world, but to suggest that this is something beyond the reach of any classically constructed system is a powerful thesis that, we might think, there is a certain amount of optimistic inductive reason to doubt.

Comment: Re:Congratulations (Score 1) 762

by Myu (#44806001) Attached to: Sexist Presentations At Startup Competition Prompt TechCrunch Apology
My intention was to say that it is wrong, not that it was either "absolutely" wrong or "commonly believed" wrong. The rules are independent of what people believe - they are there in the structures discussed in social science, whether people believe them or not. That doesn't give them any kind of claim to "absoluteness"; something I still don't know what you intend to mean, which I notice you're deliberately avoiding addressing in our conversation.

Comment: Re:Typical hypocrisy of the politically correct. (Score 1) 762

by Myu (#44805981) Attached to: Sexist Presentations At Startup Competition Prompt TechCrunch Apology

I disagree with the claim that "if someone is acting extremely morally wrong, it is okay to hate them". You do not need to hate people in order to come into conflict with them on matters of moral judgement, and since that would be the only case in which actively hating people seems justified, I don't think it stands up.

The kind of tolerance being talked about here is one of tolerating the fact that people exist and have personal autonomy, and hatred seems to clash with that toleration. On the other hand, "not hating someone" doesn't mean "letting their injustices go unchallenged".

The person who's taking you to lunch has no intention of paying.