Author Topic: Objectivity - a software development approach  (Read 5105 times)

P3nT4gR4m

  • Official SSOOKN Pariah
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 72439
  • I'm an artist now - isn't that depressing?
    • View Profile
    • fuck you
Re: Objectivity - a software development approach
« Reply #15 on: June 02, 2014, 07:55:32 pm »

Buffer overrun? 

Thing is I'm not extrapolating this out to the year 50,000 or whenever we have the whole thing. This can begin to happen right now. In fact it's already started. In a sense, the first phase is almost complete. Information engineering has been going for years. It's already had a massive impact on a wide range of real world systems.

Right this minute if your bio-vehicular manifestation apparatus develops a fatal malfunction, statistically speaking, you're more likely to survive now than you were back before a metric fuckton of software systems were put in place to stage-manage all the people and machinery required to diagnose the pathology and perform a rectification procedure.

The deeper these lab-coat guys seem to dig them more they're coming across information. Code. Biology just did it with DNA - a bunch of serial code written on a strip of self replicating tape. So we're currently at the - room full of lightbulbs - stage of this technology but another decade or two and we'll have SDK's and IDE's and Lifeform modelling paradigms all up the wazzoo. Kids'll be running around with apps embedded in their smart clothes that can hack the brainwaves of a wasp over bluetooth and make it not want to sting them.

Human behaviour can be coded. Hell, we already have a good handle on how they work. I see neuroscience, at some point, producing the kind of hard data an engineer can code. All human systems from street crossings to individual personalities themselves will be coded for. You don't like being scared of spiders? Fine - we'll code that for you. Want an encyclopaedic knowledge of ancient Greek architecture. Sorted. Upgraded arithmetic and logic capability? There you go.

This sounds both terrifying and amazing.  It would be terrific for everyone to understand everything they wanted to, but where do you stop?  Does the planet just suddenly become a hyper-inteligent utopia? Or does a more sinister element take over?

Perhaps this is just the cynical, paranoid part of my brain talking, but it seems to me that something so incredible as understanding the "code of life" and it's application would be subject to an incredible amount of ethical problems.  I picture it leading to some kind of dystopia, where everyone is born beautiful and inteligent, yet the upper class can be easily seperated from the lower class.  Born to a family that was poor when the technology to alter brain-states was created? That's too bad.  You're going to be a janitor.  And you know what? We're even going to code you to fucking love being a janitor.  And when you go in for your checkups, we'll make sure that we keep you that way if any nature/nurture stuff started to change your worldview.  And they won't stop until everyone's "beautiful".

Pay no attention to anything I just said, because I was rambling for no good reason again.

Naw, man, all these things are legitimate concerns. Fair enough you're framing them in terms that an early 21st century unaugmented primate is capable of understanding, whereas I'm expecting a whole bunch of new conflictory scenarios, which I'm currently unable to even conceptualise, will emerge. I can only hope that these are less innately destructive than their currently existent counterparts.

« Last Edit: June 02, 2014, 08:02:02 pm by P3nT4gR4m »
Not actually a meat product.
Ass-Kicking & Foot-Stomping Ancient Master of SHIT FUCK FUCK FUCK
Awful and Bent Behemothic Results of Last Night's Painful Squat.
High Altitude Haggis-Filled Sex Bucket From Beyond Time and Space.
Internet Monkey Person of Filthy and Immoral Pygmy-Porn Wart Contagion
Octomom Auxillary Heat Exchanger Repairman
walking the fine line line between genius and batshit fucking crazy

"computation is a pattern in the spacetime arrangement of particles, and it’s not the particles but the pattern that really matters! Matter doesn’t matter." -- Max Tegmark

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Objectivity - a software development approach
« Reply #16 on: June 02, 2014, 09:45:59 pm »

The deeper these lab-coat guys seem to dig them more they're coming across information. Code. Biology just did it with DNA - a bunch of serial code written on a strip of self replicating tape. So we're currently at the - room full of lightbulbs - stage of this technology but another decade or two and we'll have SDK's and IDE's and Lifeform modelling paradigms all up the wazzoo. Kids'll be running around with apps embedded in their smart clothes that can hack the brainwaves of a wasp over bluetooth and make it not want to sting them.

Human behaviour can be coded. Hell, we already have a good handle on how they work. I see neuroscience, at some point, producing the kind of hard data an engineer can code. All human systems from street crossings to individual personalities themselves will be coded for. You don't like being scared of spiders? Fine - we'll code that for you. Want an encyclopaedic knowledge of ancient Greek architecture. Sorted. Upgraded arithmetic and logic capability? There you go.

Biologists mapped DNA, and then realized that the complexity of how it actually works is so huge that we maybe, kind of, sort of, understand approximately 2% of it, and it's the simplest 2%.

Neuroscience hasn't even gotten that far.

I know you want to believe, but you are vastly overestimating the current state of the research. What we HAVE done is pretty amazing, but the one thing it's showing us more vividly with each new advance is that the depth of what we don't know is far more immense than we anticipated.

It's just not that simple.
“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”


Raz Tech

  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 3782
  • SPAG
    • View Profile
Re: Objectivity - a software development approach
« Reply #17 on: June 02, 2014, 10:06:08 pm »
What we HAVE done is pretty amazing, but the one thing it's showing us more vividly with each new advance is that the depth of what we don't know is far more immense than we anticipated.


That's what has always amazed me about the universe.  We know we haven't studied the universe fully on a large scale, and at the same time, we're not sure we have it down to the smallest level.  I seem to remember that school taught me the world is protons, neutrons, and electrons.  Now there's quarks, but they aren't just quarks, they're up quarks and down quarks, and a few others I can't remember.  And eventually we may figure out that something smaller makes up quarks.  Or maybe we already have, and I don't know.t  They could be proving string theory as we speak, and then what?

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Objectivity - a software development approach
« Reply #18 on: June 02, 2014, 10:28:33 pm »
What we HAVE done is pretty amazing, but the one thing it's showing us more vividly with each new advance is that the depth of what we don't know is far more immense than we anticipated.


That's what has always amazed me about the universe.  We know we haven't studied the universe fully on a large scale, and at the same time, we're not sure we have it down to the smallest level.  I seem to remember that school taught me the world is protons, neutrons, and electrons.  Now there's quarks, but they aren't just quarks, they're up quarks and down quarks, and a few others I can't remember.  And eventually we may figure out that something smaller makes up quarks.  Or maybe we already have, and I don't know.t  They could be proving string theory as we speak, and then what?

I like how quarks are named; up, down, bottom, top, charm, and strange. It reminds me of how in Cherokee there are five ways to conjugate nouns depending on whether they're long, rigid, flexible, liquid, or alive.
“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”


Raz Tech

  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 3782
  • SPAG
    • View Profile
Re: Objectivity - a software development approach
« Reply #19 on: June 03, 2014, 12:06:23 am »
What we HAVE done is pretty amazing, but the one thing it's showing us more vividly with each new advance is that the depth of what we don't know is far more immense than we anticipated.


That's what has always amazed me about the universe.  We know we haven't studied the universe fully on a large scale, and at the same time, we're not sure we have it down to the smallest level.  I seem to remember that school taught me the world is protons, neutrons, and electrons.  Now there's quarks, but they aren't just quarks, they're up quarks and down quarks, and a few others I can't remember.  And eventually we may figure out that something smaller makes up quarks.  Or maybe we already have, and I don't know.t  They could be proving string theory as we speak, and then what?

I like how quarks are named; up, down, bottom, top, charm, and strange. It reminds me of how in Cherokee there are five ways to conjugate nouns depending on whether they're long, rigid, flexible, liquid, or alive.

Who gets to name these things anyways? Proton and electron at least make sense.  I think they're called quark just so that when somebody studies them, if they happen to say "that's quirky" another scientist can say "don't you mean that's quarky?" hurhurhur hilarity ensues.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Objectivity - a software development approach
« Reply #20 on: June 03, 2014, 12:27:29 am »
What we HAVE done is pretty amazing, but the one thing it's showing us more vividly with each new advance is that the depth of what we don't know is far more immense than we anticipated.


That's what has always amazed me about the universe.  We know we haven't studied the universe fully on a large scale, and at the same time, we're not sure we have it down to the smallest level.  I seem to remember that school taught me the world is protons, neutrons, and electrons.  Now there's quarks, but they aren't just quarks, they're up quarks and down quarks, and a few others I can't remember.  And eventually we may figure out that something smaller makes up quarks.  Or maybe we already have, and I don't know.t  They could be proving string theory as we speak, and then what?

I like how quarks are named; up, down, bottom, top, charm, and strange. It reminds me of how in Cherokee there are five ways to conjugate nouns depending on whether they're long, rigid, flexible, liquid, or alive.

Who gets to name these things anyways? Proton and electron at least make sense.  I think they're called quark just so that when somebody studies them, if they happen to say "that's quirky" another scientist can say "don't you mean that's quarky?" hurhurhur hilarity ensues.

And they aren't types of quarks, they're flavors! charm flavor quarks!

It's because scientists are assholes.

Actually, it's because only three flavors were known at the time they were named, and they were so strange that they were named for a nonsense word in a line by James Joyce: "Three quarks for Muster Mark!". I don't even know what that means.

Fun fact: Bottom and Top flavors used to be called "Truth" and "Beauty", but it turns out that scientists aren't THAT big of assholes so it got changed.

I don't even really know what the fuck a quark is. I mean, I know that two up quarks and a down quark make up a proton, and that two down quarks and an up quark make up a neutron, and that positrons and electrons are flavors of lepton, and that protons and neutrons can combine/decombine with positrons and electrons in such a way that may change a neutron to a proton and vice versa, but that's pretty much it. Probably all I'll ever really know, in fact, since I'm not planning on taking nuclear chemistry.
“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”


Raz Tech

  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 3782
  • SPAG
    • View Profile
Re: Objectivity - a software development approach
« Reply #21 on: June 03, 2014, 12:37:50 am »
Yeah I was just reading about that.  I guess they can have some points back for the Finnegan's Wake reference.  I was surprised to see they were discovered in the 60's and I clearly don't remember learning about them in school 30 years later.  Guess I should have gone to college if I wanted that kind of education.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Objectivity - a software development approach
« Reply #22 on: June 03, 2014, 12:41:00 am »
Yeah I was just reading about that.  I guess they can have some points back for the Finnegan's Wake reference.  I was surprised to see they were discovered in the 60's and I clearly don't remember learning about them in school 30 years later.  Guess I should have gone to college if I wanted that kind of education.

I didn't go to high school, but from what I gather they only go so deep into sciency stuff. It's a shame.
“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”


The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 36736
    • View Profile
Re: Objectivity - a software development approach
« Reply #23 on: June 03, 2014, 03:02:23 am »
Yeah I was just reading about that.  I guess they can have some points back for the Finnegan's Wake reference.  I was surprised to see they were discovered in the 60's and I clearly don't remember learning about them in school 30 years later.  Guess I should have gone to college if I wanted that kind of education.

Scientists are all drug addicts.  It's why they spend so much time reading crappy Irish novelists.

" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

P3nT4gR4m

  • Official SSOOKN Pariah
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 72439
  • I'm an artist now - isn't that depressing?
    • View Profile
    • fuck you
Re: Objectivity - a software development approach
« Reply #24 on: June 03, 2014, 07:09:07 am »

The deeper these lab-coat guys seem to dig them more they're coming across information. Code. Biology just did it with DNA - a bunch of serial code written on a strip of self replicating tape. So we're currently at the - room full of lightbulbs - stage of this technology but another decade or two and we'll have SDK's and IDE's and Lifeform modelling paradigms all up the wazzoo. Kids'll be running around with apps embedded in their smart clothes that can hack the brainwaves of a wasp over bluetooth and make it not want to sting them.

Human behaviour can be coded. Hell, we already have a good handle on how they work. I see neuroscience, at some point, producing the kind of hard data an engineer can code. All human systems from street crossings to individual personalities themselves will be coded for. You don't like being scared of spiders? Fine - we'll code that for you. Want an encyclopaedic knowledge of ancient Greek architecture. Sorted. Upgraded arithmetic and logic capability? There you go.

Biologists mapped DNA, and then realized that the complexity of how it actually works is so huge that we maybe, kind of, sort of, understand approximately 2% of it, and it's the simplest 2%.

Neuroscience hasn't even gotten that far.

I know you want to believe, but you are vastly overestimating the current state of the research. What we HAVE done is pretty amazing, but the one thing it's showing us more vividly with each new advance is that the depth of what we don't know is far more immense than we anticipated.

It's just not that simple.

I never said it was simple, however 2% suggests we're about half way done if you extrapolate along similar lines to the genome project - 4 years in they had mapped 1%. The machines that are used to decipher the code will be considerably more powerful four or five years from now. If we were relying on human cognition to work it out then, yeah, it'd take forever but we're not relying on human cognition so I'm a bit more optimistic than you about this.
Not actually a meat product.
Ass-Kicking & Foot-Stomping Ancient Master of SHIT FUCK FUCK FUCK
Awful and Bent Behemothic Results of Last Night's Painful Squat.
High Altitude Haggis-Filled Sex Bucket From Beyond Time and Space.
Internet Monkey Person of Filthy and Immoral Pygmy-Porn Wart Contagion
Octomom Auxillary Heat Exchanger Repairman
walking the fine line line between genius and batshit fucking crazy

"computation is a pattern in the spacetime arrangement of particles, and it’s not the particles but the pattern that really matters! Matter doesn’t matter." -- Max Tegmark

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87429
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: Objectivity - a software development approach
« Reply #25 on: June 03, 2014, 12:40:15 pm »
I don't even really know what the fuck a quark is. I mean, I know that two up quarks and a down quark make up a proton, and that two down quarks and an up quark make up a neutron, and that positrons and electrons are flavors of lepton, and that protons and neutrons can combine/decombine with positrons and electrons in such a way that may change a neutron to a proton and vice versa, but that's pretty much it. Probably all I'll ever really know, in fact, since I'm not planning on taking nuclear chemistry.

If you're really curious, I can try to explain it.  But it looks like you've got a lot of other stuff on your plate, and they all have midterms coming up.

Junkenstein

  • Technically-Oriented & Horribly Mobile Crecy of Crab Lice.
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 115429
    • View Profile
Re: Objectivity - a software development approach
« Reply #26 on: June 03, 2014, 01:01:37 pm »
I've been reading about Quarks and such on and off for years and I still haven't a fucking clue.

If you want to type it, I for one, will read it.
Nine naked Men just walking down the road will cause a heap of trouble for all concerned.

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87429
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: Objectivity - a software development approach
« Reply #27 on: June 03, 2014, 01:37:53 pm »
I've been reading about Quarks and such on and off for years and I still haven't a fucking clue.

If you want to type it, I for one, will read it.

Ok, so, keep in mind that none of this is intuitive.

The equations of the Standard Model make no references to particles.   And yet, we have atoms, and somewhat useful stick and ball models of molecules, and so on.  What’s happening is that the nuclei is made up of stuff that reacts with a force law that when excited give it an intrinsic size.  So, they’re sizeless quantum energies, but they make things that (mostly) behave like particles when they react to forces.

Ok, so those behaviors can be grouped in to Leptons and Hadrons, based upon their mass.  Hadrons are made up of Quarks, which are described by four-component wave functions obeying Dirac's equation. They come in three “generations” of families with two members each.  The three pairs of quarks in order of increasing mass are called (and the corresponding flavors are labeled) up and down, charm and strange, and top and bottom (or u, d; c, s; t, b; with primes to distinguish anti-quarks: u', d', etc.)

The quarks carry all three kinds of charges – electromagnetic, weak, and strong, and they can clump together to make long-lived objects with definite size and mass, the most stable of which are the nuclei of atoms. The first member of each quark pair, often called the "up"-type partner, carries a positive electric charge two-thirds that of the electron. The other "down"-type partner in each pair has a charge one unit less, or negative one-third.

The strong force, which acts only among quarks – thus distinguishing them from leptons – is generated by a new kind of charge that differs from electricity in having six rather than two states. Three of these are the so-called color charges found on the quarks (call them red, blue, and green), and the other three are the charges found on the anti-quarks (call them anti-red, anti-blue, and anti-green). Since each quark comes in three colors, it would be more accurate to count 3×6 = 18 different kinds of quarks. The colored versions are all so similar it is easier to think of them as just different states of the same underlying object so we usually speak of only six quarks and their anti-quarks.

TL;DR – Quarks are energies that interact with forces and have mass, which clump together to form Hadrons.




I may have over-generalized some bits.

Junkenstein

  • Technically-Oriented & Horribly Mobile Crecy of Crab Lice.
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 115429
    • View Profile
Re: Objectivity - a software development approach
« Reply #28 on: June 03, 2014, 01:53:41 pm »
Appreciated and makes marginally more sense than what I thought. That said, I'm still pretty fucking clueless. I'll try and stick "quarks for dummies" or similar on the reading list as I do feel that I should be making more of an effort to understand this shit.

Nine naked Men just walking down the road will cause a heap of trouble for all concerned.

P3nT4gR4m

  • Official SSOOKN Pariah
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 72439
  • I'm an artist now - isn't that depressing?
    • View Profile
    • fuck you
Re: Objectivity - a software development approach
« Reply #29 on: June 03, 2014, 02:17:19 pm »
Electricity has two states?  :?
Not actually a meat product.
Ass-Kicking & Foot-Stomping Ancient Master of SHIT FUCK FUCK FUCK
Awful and Bent Behemothic Results of Last Night's Painful Squat.
High Altitude Haggis-Filled Sex Bucket From Beyond Time and Space.
Internet Monkey Person of Filthy and Immoral Pygmy-Porn Wart Contagion
Octomom Auxillary Heat Exchanger Repairman
walking the fine line line between genius and batshit fucking crazy

"computation is a pattern in the spacetime arrangement of particles, and it’s not the particles but the pattern that really matters! Matter doesn’t matter." -- Max Tegmark