Riskers

Most people’s risk assessment process: I heard it on the news or on Twitter, and there is a 0.0000000000000005% risk of it, so I will take a million times greater risk to avoid that 0.0000000000000005% risk.

It completely mystifies me how most people “think.”

Fire Bad

When I seem some disphit assclown lib (nearly all of them, these days) talk about how space exploration research and the spillover effect from that (not just technical, either) never did anything for anyone, I want to take away everything from them that was in some way associated with that or sprung from it.

That’d eliminate a lot of the modern environmental movement, too, by the way.

Those mooks a million years ago would’ve been carping and attempting to prevent the use of fire with, “Don’t need that, we just bash rock, eat. Fire bad.” (You know it’s true.)

Tung

That is the coolest shit that we should never, ever do that I’ve ever heard.

Amia

Amia Srinivasan is the only new interesting philosopher I’ve found in the last couple of years, though I disagree with her about 60% of the time.

But fuck, at least she’s thinking. That is an achievement in itself. (And her book isn’t in the “smart” book category for me, because any philosophy for me is like breathing air is for most people. It’s just what my brain does.)

Language Turing

To show that the set of all Turing machines is countable, we first observe that the set of all strings ฮฃโˆ— is countable for any alphabet ฮฃ. With only finitely many strings of each length, we may form a list of ฮฃโˆ— by writing down all strings of length 0, length 1, length 2, and so on.

The set of all Turing machines is countable because each Turing machine M has an encoding into a string โŸจMโŸฉ. If we simply omit those strings that are not legal encodings of Turing machines, we can obtain a list of all Turing machines.

To show that the set of all languages is uncountable, we first observe that the set of all infinite binary sequences is uncountable. An infinite binary sequence is an unending sequence of 0s and 1s. Let B be the set of all infinite binary sequences. We can show that B is uncountable by using a proof by diagonalization similar to the one we used in Theorem 4.17 to show that R is uncountable.

Let L be the set of all languages over alphabet ฮฃ. We show that L is uncountable by giving a correspondence with B, thus showing that the two sets are the same size. Let ฮฃโˆ— = {s1, s2, s3, . . .}. Each language A โˆˆ L has a unique sequence in B.The ith bit of that sequence is a 1 if si โˆˆA and is a 0 if si ฬธโˆˆA, which is called the characteristic sequence of A. For example, if A were the language of all strings starting with a 0 over the alphabet {0,1}, its characteristic sequence ฯ‡A would be
ฮฃโˆ—={ ฮต, 0, 1, 00, 01, 10, 11, 000,001, ยทยทยท } ;
A={ 0, 00, 01, 000,001,ยทยทยท};
ฯ‡A= 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 ยทยทยท .

The function f : Lโˆ’โ†’B, where f(A) equals the characteristic sequence of A, is one-to-one and onto, and hence is a correspondence. Therefore, as B is uncountable, L is uncountable as well.

Thus we have shown that the set of all languages cannot be put into a correspondence with the set of all Turing machines. We conclude that some languages are not recognized by any Turing machine.

Introduction to the Theory of Computation. 3e, by Michael Sipser

(Some of the symbols didn’t quite come through correctly. Pasting from a PDF is always iffy. The logic, though, should still be fairly clear I think.)

Generative

โ€˜Gen Zโ€™ Only Exists in Your Head. The dividing lines between generations are a figment of our collective imagination.

Look at that complete bullshit. How does this utter malarkey keep getting trotted out? This is one of those essays where his own points argue against his stated thesis. How do people write pieces where it’s obvious from their own analysis that they aren’t correct?

I’m trying to figure out the politics or the reasoning behind why it’s worthwhile for so many to deny the obvious fact that there are important differences between generations, but don’t have much yet. Is it just the usual academic desire for obscurantism? That doesn’t seem right but I don’t have any better thoughts on it just yet.

Also, just because there is continuous change doesn’t mean that there aren’t important differences between more-distant sampled points. How do so very many stats/STEM people miss this?

There are so many articles about this that it almost feels like a propaganda push, but I can’t figure out in the service of what.

Exec Flag

Boeing pilot involved in 737 Max testing indicted in Texas.

The pilots are always scapegoats. In this case I have no doubt he was part of it, but the directives to do this sort of thing always come from somewhere — that is, some executive. Someone told him to withhold this information. He didn’t just decide to do it.

That executive or those executives who made the decision to not disclose vital information, of course, will never face any repercussions because they never do.

Takeaway Not Takeout

Something I’ve been noticing more and more, obviously. These destructive views are even achieving perhaps a narrow majority in liberal/left spaces, which is just terrible. There are more facets of these “remover” attitudes other than climate, but that is one of their primary excuses for becoming aroused over how much they are going to be forced to take away from everyone.

This is great and true (and darkly funny):