vaghti mind ro dadi raft khodet oon too boodi.
( written back in 2010 )
سهشنبه، دی ۱۱، ۱۴۰۳
شنبه، دی ۰۸، ۱۴۰۳
Possibility of zero-defect code
Reply to Beck on (almost) zero-defect:
I totally agree, since I have at least one example. I boast on the fact that, my code virtually never has had a bug; in my last job, it was literally zero. Unfortunately, I have to mention it to my managers and bring it up explicitly, since “bug-free code” will receive less attention; a better job appears less of a job. I have to mention this, because managers sometimes don’t see that being possible, so they fail to measure the efficiency of inefficient people vs efficient ones; they can only compare. Hence, the truly efficient people, even 10X ones, will ironically appear as the “inefficient ones”! What they do may take a bit longer than others, but will work clockwork quietly without making noise and cause meetings and follow-up tasks. It is impossible to prove that, a delivered task could have taken 5 sprints, if done by others. When a better code is delivered, say 10x productivity comoared to others, it will look like as if it was a smaller task: 1/10th size. The only measure of complexity seems to be how long humans will struggle doing it. … Maybe the only solution is to be careful to only work in a team with people of similar code maturity; that your peers’s outputs have “comparable” levels of “defect density”.
PS. I don’t mean absolutely zero defect, but rare.
Original discussion: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/kentbeck_i-saw-a-lovely-logical-argument-for-why-activity-7277435725162102785-geG-?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios
They invite you to humbleness . They deem arrogant. etc. So, as a solution: don’t join that company.
But unfortunately, unshit companies are rare, and are getting rarer (in terms of percentage).
2025
Who is from 2024?
I am from 2050. It’s saddening in 2024-2025…, you humans have been so fucked up. It was a cultural shock at first, I am getting used to it.
شنبه، آذر ۲۴، ۱۴۰۳
Auto-Eponymic Imprint Effect
Principle/Law of names: creators when name things, subconsciously use their own name for what they coin as their product/creation:
It is a "weak" law, in the sense that, it is true in a statistical way (can be shown only as an inclination).
It holds not in an obvious way, but perhaps by shaping their taste. It is an inclination.
Note that they could name it in infinite many other ways. So, a similarity, even in single-instances is non-trivially occurring.
Nevertheless, for a proper statistical treatment, it is perhaps hard to define the "null hypothesis" (i.e. measure of falsifiability).
It is about when they have a choice, when have the chance to coin the name. About their taste. And it holds more in commercial settings: commercial or semi-commercial labels. Most example are modern names. Perhaps, brand names.
Examples:
• Wiki: Ward Cunningham
• PageRank: Larry Page.
• Free Energy Principle: Karl Friston.
• Java: James Gosling.
Weak examples:
• X ( x.com, space-X ): Elon Musk: (Can you find part sounding similar to "x" in his name?)
• Google: Larry Page.
• Silver Beatles: John Lennon.
It is not universal. Counter- Examples of it not holding: • Newton: Fluxions, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia ..., etc. • Leibnitz: Monads. • Jess Bezos's Amazon. • Apple. • ... infinite other counter-examples.
Some are not done by the original authors: So, they conform to this rule/law in a trivial way:
• Joseph-Louis Lagrange: λ (Lagrange multiplier)
Some observations about when this pattern holds:
• Some are more explicit.
• Especially the first letter.
Again. this is a hypothesis, and I need to define a null-hypothesis to rigorously formulate it.
What shall I call this "weak rule/law"? (Maybe I should use sneak letters of my name into it? ;) I am terrible at naming.
I consulted AI, it suggested these: EIP, SSH, TIH, NEP, LPR, NTH, IER, ARN, KTP, MSNR, SRN, STP, SSNR, CNI, SNI, SPE, SLLI, SEN, NRE, SSSR, SRN. I see a subtle inclination to use the last two. It just feels relatively more like a law of this kind. ... Subtle Signature Rule. Coiner's (Creator's) Identity's Echo in Names (CIEN). Naming Resonance Effect. Creator’s Naming Effect. Personal Signature Effect. Identity Echo Effect. Imprint of Identity Effect. Coiner’s Effect. Creator’s Mark Effect. Creator’s Echo Effect. Hidden Imprint Effect (but it is often not intentional). Creator’s (or Coiner's) Taste Reflection Effect. Resonance of Identity Effect. "Law of creators' name's subtle signature". Naming Eponymic Subconscious Tendency. The [subtle] Auto-Eponymic Imprint Effect*. etc.
PS. How about this weblog, epsilon? epsilon At first, it seems unrelated to "Sohail". But 5 letters out of 7 are in my first name: epsilon ∩ sohail = { esilo }. I like greek letters, especially {εηλμψτσΣδφ }.
دوشنبه، آذر ۱۹، ۱۴۰۳
form c
Define Consciousness in a sentence: [abridged, from a form]
Consciousness has multiple aspects and dimensions that should be both separated so that we can study their "synthesis" and interplay. It is partly what is synthesised by the brain as a generative process, that has multiple aspects such as multi-modal sensory and perceptual aspects (including interoception and verbal), perceptual qualia, attention, memory & permanence, agency, predictive-generative perception that is active, and perception that is orchestrated carefully with actions as exchanges with external world, that feels as-if a seamless and unified experience. This unified experience is endogenously generated, but also projected into the external world. It is hard to fit in one sentence, because it is not only all these multitudes, but also very inter-subjective, and even self, agency in that. The interplay of theory-of-mind, and various meta-cognition functions are in place. There are even other aspects, such as "affective" and elements, ...
Subjective phenomenological experiencing: In theory, if we could alter the brain partially even by direct stimulation (electrical, using implants, during surgery, MEG, etc), it can potentially inform a scientific approach, uses subjective psychophysics, and also neuro-feedback, would give us great insights; although that would be first felt as "subjective" experience and reported, and the report can be recorded and used for developing it and abstracting it to models, causal structures or determining principles, perhaps in a nested and recursive complex composition of boundaries.
Another aspect, inspired by (continental) tradition of philosophy and phenomenology, the feedback-like self-referring, self-reflecting, and self-awareness loops, inside and outside the boundaries of body, with environment and levels of niches.
Subjective experience of the researcher, e.g. in psychedelic experience, or in directly electrical stimulation of the brain, may have potentials to be used as sources of ideas for psychedelic experience, but eventually, need to be translated into rigorous testable hypotheses in scientific framework.
Multiple meanings of consciousness: Many theorists focus on one aspect (e.g. IIT emphasise on consciousness as levels of opposite of anaesthesia). Multiple dimensions should considering accommodating various modes of consciousness: sleep (various states: dreaming, including vivid etc, twilight/ pre-sleep, 3-dimensional AIM mode ), psychedelic (multiple types), anaesthesia, coma (of various GCS scales), default-mode awareness, in-the-zone, altered such as psychedelic experience, and some perceptual aberrations in conditions such as schizophrenia, clouded brain, anxiety and mindfulness, ... even multiple states or pain, anxiety, and more subjective states and qualia such as alienation, etc.
Consciousness is deeply inter-subjective. A spectrum of egoless to ego-shielded (almost an immune system to an otherwise open and boundary-less merged system) exist. Even perception of self is perhaps via the inter-subjective mechanisms ( involves the mirror system, language, meta-cognition, etc ).
Eventually, we need to develop such theories using scientific rigor, using scientific and mathematical tools can be used to serve, as tools at service of such understanding, that is deeply philosophical as well as analytical and physicalist-ic.
Unfortunately, I could not fit consciousness into one sentence, as it has many factors, but there must be ways to unify these into elegant multi-dimensional and multi-aspect theories.
اشتراک در:
پستها (Atom)
