Article did not load on my tablet :sweat_smile:

I learned about this reading Ishtar Rising by Robert Anton Wilson

fnord hehe

Seems to be enforcing ‘ubiquitous language’ at the machine level - not some kind of mathematical dual where one is invertible to the other - but enforcing soft skills as hard skills.

  ‘protobuf specs dont have enough information for us to codegen iceberg tables so we will write a new codegen spec language’

what makes a duck a duck? when we know which tables we can find it in

Except that "Ubiquitous Language" is supposed to refer to terminology within a specific Bounded Context. In DDD it is desirable and expected that there is a mapping between them. This proposal tries to entirely erase Bounded Contexts. This is what I mean about people not understanding the words.

So in the sense of "what do we do about terminology not matching across an organisation" this and DDD are literal opposite solutions: one says "erase differences with a central definition (and bear the coordination costs)" while the other says "encourage differences with local definitions (and bear the mapping costs)".

UDA enables both approaches. each has its place.

It may enable both approaches, but the article positions only one. I mean, the title is "Model Once, Represent Everywhere".

One reason I often hear astrology is not taken seriously by the scientific community, as in findings like 'athletes often have aries rising on their birth chart' are ignored and not evaluated further, is because there is no empirical foundation for the communication of the effects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_science

There actually is empirical foundation for the communication of the effects![0] But the model is strictly simpler if you remove the astrology from it; astrology has no additional explanatory power, and its novel claims (claims not predicted by any other model) are wrong.

> Such children are more likely to be picked for school teams. Once they are picked, players benefit from more practice, coaching and game time — advantages denied to those not selected, who are disproportionately likely to be younger for their selection year. Once accounting for their biological age, the older players might not have been any better than later-born children when they are first picked. But after becoming part of a team, and being exposed to training and matches, they really do become better than later-born children who might be equally talented.

[0]: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-athletes-birthdays-...

Sorry if my language was unclear, I meant to highlight this line from the wiki article:

"There is no proposed mechanism of action by which the positions and motions of stars and planets could affect people and events on Earth in the way astrologers say they do that does not contradict well-understood, basic aspects of biology and physics."

Relevant here because it essentially says "there is no empirical basis for spooky action at a distance" which has been grounds for dismissal of such action-at-a-distance claims like 'the relative positions of celestial bodies influence events on the earth'.

This kind of empiricism has been used as grounds to not critically evaluate these claims. Everyone is certainly free to have their own reasons around why they do not want to evaluate such claims. For example some people only want to consider things that are easily falsifiable and subject to particular scientific practices. The wiki article goes on to mention how Carl Sagan refused to disavow astrology on these grounds (i.e. gravity is weak so stellar influence writ large ought to weak) while still leaving room for a disavowal if it were on firmer grounds. I do think your point about simplicity is salient here.

> 'the relative positions of celestial bodies influence events on the earth'.

Who's claiming that‽ The relative positions of celestial bodies have influenced all sorts of events. For instance, the horoscopes in the newspaper, or photographs of the night sky.

No, what's in doubt is astrology, which is a much more specific set of (wrong) claims.

That's irrelevant because human ears aren't spectrum analyzers. Audio compression codecs exploit weakness in human perception[1] to discard data with minimal loss of subjective audio quality.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics

Too bad we have that pesky brain in the way. Human perception isn't just a matter of signal processing theory.

Nyquist is about sample rate and frequency, not bitrate and frequency.

Edit: Clearly there is generally a relationship between bitrate and quality, but for compressed audio it is far from "cut and dry".

Bitrate is just samplerate * bit depth. For 44100 and 32 bit float you have 1411200 bit per second.

That's only true for uncompressed audio.

Yes, but for most codecs, bitrate is variable. For the parts where the higher frequencies are present the codec is free to bump up the bitrate and it can also scale it down for silent parts or parts with low frequencies only.

Sure, if it were encoded at a variable rate. But then it wouldn’t be 320kbps CBR. Normally when I see people refer to 320kbps audio they literally mean constant bitrate. If it’s variable then for LAME mp3 people would specify V0 or V2. At least that’s the taxonomy that I absorbed when I was active on what.cd

Edit: you have edited your comment to remove mention of 320kbps so my comment is now moot :)

Yes, but afaik Spotify uses Ogg Vorbis, which is inherently VBR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorbis

Sorry. I removed the part about 320 kbps being an average, since I realized it was wrong, but you were faster :D.

At the same time, the city government is adding explicit surveillance feeds for law enforcement.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/communities/east-county...

Lemon Grove is a different city from San Diego, but youre right that we have a problem at the county level as well.

I really doubt there was any human review of the targeting settings, likely just automated verification.

If I'm writing a tool that allows users to enter their own n-grams is there an expectation that I also need to write a tool that detects if they are inputting pernicious n-grams?

Exactly. What a non-story here.

Moreover, an argument can be made that it can be used for good. Someone could target Jew haters with some sort of educational messages.

"I want to address a message to Jew haters" isn't inherently good or bad; it doesn't mean I'm a Jew hater.

For that matter, someone who expresses an interest in a topic like "German Schutzstaffel" by searching for it isn't automatically a neo-nazi.

This article has some of the flavor of blaming a knife factory for stabbings.

I suspect any n-grams can be used; you can probably target people who are interested in a "pig shit ice cream" or anything completely random.

"You Cannot Have Exactly-Once Delivery" is not the same as "Exactly-Once Delivery is expensive".

Which is it?

You cannot have it if the network is unreliable and systems fail. The network is unreliable and systems fail.

The point is that "Exactly-Once Delivery is expensive" is really just saying "at-most-once delivery with an eventual guarantee of the network healing"

I made oroboros for working with large collections of app and server configuration that need to be shared across many systems.

Previously I had been using an automation tool to template my configuration variables and found myself frustrated that I couldn't access their processed values outside of the tool.

Oroboros exposes all configuration as JSON over HTTP by recursively templating & assembling configuration files under some directory. This makes it simple to track & release changes through version control.

This project solves a particular need of mine, hopefully someone else find will find useful it as well.

Happy Hacking,

Thomas

Nice read, I had to think about a few of these.

In particular (a == 0) && (a == 1) && (a == 2).

Here's a fun value for a:

    var a = {
      called: -1,
      valueOf: function() {
        this.called += 1;
        return this.called;
      }
    };

Don't you mean:

   var A = function(){
     this.called = -1;
   }
   A.prototype.valueOf = function(){
     this.called += 1;
     Return this.called;
   }
   var a = new A()

I must think out of the box. I'm trying to find a number/string to make true. Nice catch.