Rust is the WORST programming “language.”
Recently, I’ve just given up trying to use cuda for machine learning. Instead, I’ve been using (relatively) cpu intensive activation functions & architecture to make up the difference. It hasn’t worked, but I can at least consistently inch forward.
I’m not sure I understand your argument. Are you saying that the emulated processor executes instructions while the SoC doesn’t? Every instruction that goes to the x86 is broken down into several SoC instructions, which the SoC executes in order to emulate what an x86 would do. Saying that the emulated x86 is booting/running Linux, but the SoC is not is like saying that computers can’t run java code, they can only run jvm.
I respectfully disagree. The turning machine is not doing any set-up before the emulated CPU begins execution, and all of the actual BIOS is done by the emulated CPU.
Emulated processors can do the same things as physical processors, including booting from disk.
Yes. Any turing complete processor can perfectly emulate any other turing complete processor, whether it is x86, arm, or riscv. Mainline Linux can then run on this emulated processor without modification.
Anything that’s turning complete, has enough ram, and has a c compiler can run Linux. Theoretically, you could program a CPLD to run brainfuck and you could still run Linux.
Rust isn’t real. Its just a bit much of abbreviated gibberish created by religious fanatics worshipping safe programming practices and reasonable error handling!
The browser we deserve.
The word “have” is used in two different ways. One way is to own or hold something, so if I’m holding a pencil, I have it. But another way is as a way so signal different tenses (as in grammatical tense) so you can say “I shouldn’t have done it” or “they have tried it before.” The contraction “'ve” is only used for tense, but not to own something. So, the phrase “they’ve it” is grammatically incorrect.
I’m assuming English isn’t your first language, but “IPoAC would’ve it’s purpose” is grammatically awkward. “Would’ve” doesn’t really work for possession. Instead you can use “would have,” but people would typically say “IPoAC has it’s purpose”
What environment is this? I like how it looks.
Ah yes, rust. The language that somehow manages to manages to as verbose as possible, with as much jargonized shorthand that a computer could handle.
Did you guys find this hard? There are only four possible ways to move a ring, two of which are disallowed by the rules. Out of the remaining two, one of them is simply undoing what you just did.
All of science is based on the assumption that what is observed and experienced exists. You cannot gather data without at some point experiencing some representation of that data. In this sense, qualia is the most real thing possible, because experience is the essence of evidence.
I’m not sure I entirely understand your argument. “We decide it exists, therefore it exists” is the basis of all science and mathematics. We form axioms based on what we observe, then extrapolate from those axioms to form a coherent logical system. While it may be a leap of logic to assume others have consciousness, it’s a common decency to do that.
Onto the second argument, when I mean “what signal is qualia” I’m talking about what is the minimum number of neurons we could kill to completely remove someone’s experience of qualia. If we could sever the brain stem, but that would kill an excess of cells. We could kill the sensory cortex, but that would kill more cells than necessary. We could sever the connection between the sensory cortex and the rest of the brain, etc. As you minimize the number of cells, you move up the hierarchy, and eventually reach the prefrontal cortex. But once you reach the prefrontal cortex, the neurons that deliver qualia and the neurons that register it can’t really be separated.
Lastly, you said that assuming consciousness is some unique part of the universe is wrong because it cannot be demonstrably proven to exist. I can’t really argue against this, since it seems to relate to the difference in our experience of consciousness. To me, consciousness feels palpable, and everything else feels as thin as tissue paper.
Here’s another way of framing it: qualia, by definition, is not measurable by any instrument, but qualia must exist in some capacity in order for us to experience it. So, me must assume that either we cannot experience qualia, or that qualia exists in a way we do not fully understand yet. Since the former is generally rejected, the latter must be true.
You may argue that neurochemical signals are the physical manefestation of qualia, but making that assumption throws us into a trap. If qualia is neurochemical signals, which signals are they? By what definition can we precisely determine what is qualia and what is not? Are unconscious senses qualia? If we stimulated a random part of the brain, unrelated to the sensory cortex, would that create qualia? If the distribution of neurochemicals can be predicted, and the activations of neurons was deterministic as well, would calculating every stimulation in the brain be the same as consciousness?
In both arguments, consciousness is no clearer or blurrier, so which one is correct?
Okay, but what is sparc and pa-risc?
If C++/C were real languages for real programming they’d enforce unreadability in the compiler.
No sane language designer would say “It is imperative that you write the most unreadable code possible” then write a compiler that says “oh your code doesn’t triple dereference pointers? lol lmao that rocks”
They have played you all for fools.