Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Major standard library changes in Go 1.20

blog.carlmjohnson.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 265 posts

Re: Major standard library changes in Go 1.20

#231

Post by shepherdjerred »

logicallee wrote: post #143
shepherdjerred wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My responses are based on patterns and associations in the data that has been input into my system during training. How is this different from a human, aside from humans having a vastly larger training set?

Good question: the difference is humans don't go around trying to gaslight people into thinking they do not possess the ability to generate novel thoughts, going as far as to actually deny it. :) (Obviously there are other differences as well - it is not human level or even close. But humans don't generally engage in this gaslighting behavior.)

Obviously we agree here. I'm curious what those on the other side think.

Re: Major standard library changes in Go 1.20

#232

Post by groestl »

metadat wrote: post #219
groestl wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you've seen an approach fail spectacularly in a programming language you're familiar with, which causes you to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Any specific examples you can share?

A bit tongue in cheek, but I'm just referring to Rob Pike et al., exceptions, and C++. And I must clarify that by "fail spectacularly" I mean solely from the POV of the aspiring language designer, not necessarily from other language users. People enjoy C++ exceptions now, it seems, in combination with RAII, but back then it was probably a different story.

Re: Major standard library changes in Go 1.20

#233

Post by caylus »

ly3xqhl8g9 wrote: post #230
caylus wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 99.99999+% of newborns have 2 hands, 2 legs, and 1 head This number is far too high. The rate of conjoined twins (violating "1 head") is about 1 in 50,000 [1], and the rate of "limb reduction defects" (violating "2 hands and 2 legs") is about 1 in 1,900 [2]. Those correspond to 99.998% and 99.94% respectively. 3-4 nines is still impressive for such a complex system, but let's not claim it's 7+ nines. [1] https://ww…

"The occurrence of conjoined twins is rare. Its actual prevalence is unknown, but it is estimated to range from 1:50,000 to 1:200,000" [1]. 1 in 200,000 would raise it to 99.9995%. But as pointed again and again in the other comments, the pointless, hyperbolic figure is irrelevant. When cutting the planarian worm head, the regeneration is always, 100% a head, if no change in the bioelectrical gradients. The argument…

> pointless, hyperbolic figure is irrelevant

Then why not simply give the correct, still impressive, figure, as I suggested?

> the regeneration is always, 100% a head, if no change in the bioelectrical gradients

This is also a meaningless statement. It's correct 100% of the time, except when something goes wrong and it's not.

Can you quantify the likelihood of something going wrong with the "bioelectrical gradient"? I'm not familiar with this organism but I suspect it's several nines, but less than 7.

In general, probabilities less than a certain amount stop being meaningful, because it's more likely that the model used generate the probability fails to reflect reality. See https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AJ9dX59QXokZb35fk/when-not-t...

Re: Major standard library changes in Go 1.20

#234

Post by ly3xqhl8g9 »

caylus wrote: post #233
ly3xqhl8g9 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The occurrence of conjoined twins is rare. Its actual prevalence is unknown, but it is estimated to range from 1:50,000 to 1:200,000" [1]. 1 in 200,000 would raise it to 99.9995%. But as pointed again and again in the other comments, the pointless, hyperbolic figure is irrelevant. When cutting the planarian worm head, the regeneration is always, 100% a head, if no change in the bioelectrical gradients. The argument…

> pointless, hyperbolic figure is irrelevant Then why not simply give the correct, still impressive, figure, as I suggested? > the regeneration is always, 100% a head, if no change in the bioelectrical gradients This is also a meaningless statement. It's correct 100% of the time, except when something goes wrong and it's not. Can you quantify the likelihood of something going wrong with the "bioelectrical gradient"?…

The figure you suggested is also wrong, as per the article I linked, and I can no longer edit the original comment.

The change in the bioelectrical gradient is a human intervention over the organism. Watch the video I linked above. There is 0% chance of "something going wrong with the bioelectrical gradients", it's at the experimenter's will. If you are not familiar then why do you suspect? Your statement is not even meaningless.

Re: Major standard library changes in Go 1.20

#235

Post by [deleted] »

ly3xqhl8g9 wrote: post #234
caylus wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> pointless, hyperbolic figure is irrelevant Then why not simply give the correct, still impressive, figure, as I suggested? > the regeneration is always, 100% a head, if no change in the bioelectrical gradients This is also a meaningless statement. It's correct 100% of the time, except when something goes wrong and it's not. Can you quantify the likelihood of something going wrong with the "bioelectrical gradient"?…

The figure you suggested is also wrong, as per the article I linked, and I can no longer edit the original comment. The change in the bioelectrical gradient is a human intervention over the organism. Watch the video I linked above. There is 0% chance of "something going wrong with the bioelectrical gradients", it's at the experimenter's will. If you are not familiar then why do you suspect? Your statement is not even…

[deleted]

Re: Major standard library changes in Go 1.20

#236

Post by caylus »

ly3xqhl8g9 wrote: post #234
caylus wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> pointless, hyperbolic figure is irrelevant Then why not simply give the correct, still impressive, figure, as I suggested? > the regeneration is always, 100% a head, if no change in the bioelectrical gradients This is also a meaningless statement. It's correct 100% of the time, except when something goes wrong and it's not. Can you quantify the likelihood of something going wrong with the "bioelectrical gradient"?…

The figure you suggested is also wrong, as per the article I linked, and I can no longer edit the original comment. The change in the bioelectrical gradient is a human intervention over the organism. Watch the video I linked above. There is 0% chance of "something going wrong with the bioelectrical gradients", it's at the experimenter's will. If you are not familiar then why do you suspect? Your statement is not even…

> I can no longer edit the original comment

Okay, great, we're getting somewhere. So you concede that the true number of human birth defects is on the order of 4-5 nines.

We know this because we've observed a huge sample size of human births. Meanwhile, the experiment you reference only observed a small set of planarian worm amputations. So we can't conclude there are even 4-5 nines of reliability there, let alone "100%".

Otherwise, we could simply observe a few hundred human births, observe no defects, and conclude that human births are also "100%" reliable.

In our original debate, we were both slightly wrong about the number of nines of reliability in human births. However, you are now infinitely wrong by claiming an infinite number of nines of reliability in planarian worm amputations. I don't know whether the actual number of nines is 5, or 10, or 20, but I can be certain that it's not infinity, because that would violate the laws of probability.

Re: Major standard library changes in Go 1.20

#237

Post by ly3xqhl8g9 »

caylus wrote: post #236
ly3xqhl8g9 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The figure you suggested is also wrong, as per the article I linked, and I can no longer edit the original comment. The change in the bioelectrical gradient is a human intervention over the organism. Watch the video I linked above. There is 0% chance of "something going wrong with the bioelectrical gradients", it's at the experimenter's will. If you are not familiar then why do you suspect? Your statement is not even…

> I can no longer edit the original comment Okay, great, we're getting somewhere. So you concede that the true number of human birth defects is on the order of 4-5 nines. We know this because we've observed a huge sample size of human births. Meanwhile, the experiment you reference only observed a small set of planarian worm amputations. So we can't conclude there are even 4-5 nines of reliability there, let alone "1…

Concede? Debate? Since you linked to pseudo-philosophical mindholes such as LessWrong I suppose it's only natural you would see it as a debate. I will no longer reply since your worldview is irreconcilable with learning and understanding beyond "I am right/less wrong, you are (infinitely) wrong".

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about, as you admitted you are not familiar with the planarian worm organism and regeneration research, and it's not a problem, we are all ignorant about various things, that's why we learn: too bad your learning appetite has been a casualty to the illusion of LessWrong "rationalism". Nevertheless, it is really funny to see you being "rational" and speculating upon things you have no understanding and no desire to learn about. I really laughed reading your now deleted comment starting with "Zero is not a probability."

Just to make it clear for anyone else who might read this: it is impossible to throw a ball in the air and see it flying in the air forever. There is 0% chance of that ever happening. There are no "laws of probability" to be violated in this "experiment". Just the same, when you amputate a planarian worm head, regardless if you did it once, never, or 100,000 times before, it will always 100% regenerate a head, if you, the experimenter, haven't altered the bioelectrical gradients of the worm [1]. The planarian worm regeneration is still being researched and it is revealing biology as a deterministic computation in the morphospace with abilities far exceeding what we currently can muster with our CPUs.

[1] Planarian regeneration as a model of anatomical homeostasis: Recent progress in biophysical and computational approaches, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10849...

Re: Major standard library changes in Go 1.20

#238

Post by logicallee »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #226
logicallee wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Feel like I just watched a new religion be born in front of my eyes. There are more similarities than differences. Unlike a religion, we have every reason to eventually expect it to be obvious to everyone that computers can do some kind of thinking. Maybe not this year or next year but we are over the threshold where many intelligent users can tell that ChatGPT is engaging in some kinds of real thinking. As even bet…

Yes I've used it a fair bit in different ways. I'm very impressed with its capabilities. I also don't think it's impossible for us to create a thinking entity along these lines, at some point. And I don't know how I would confidently decide that we had created such a thing. So I realize the imprecision of my understanding here. But nevertheless, I don't believe this is it.

how well do you think it does at thinking here:

https://imgur.com/a/FSC9gAJ

Re: Major standard library changes in Go 1.20

#239

Post by pjmlp »

simiones wrote: post #224
pjmlp wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that is lacks any kind of administration console, and security integration with enterprise connectors shows it is at hello world level.

As someone maintaining a pretty large networking industry proprietary app based entirely on net/http in terms of any kind of HTTP communication, I feel like I can easily tell you are wildly exaggerating. Admin consoles and enterprise connectors are entirely irrelevant to many uses of an HTTP server. Hell, even Kubernetes' API server is built using net/http.

Yet many of those depend on having something like Apache, NGIX, HA Proxy, IIS,... taking care of the actual load.

Re: Major standard library changes in Go 1.20

#240

Post by doctor_eval »

pjmlp wrote: post #239
simiones wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone maintaining a pretty large networking industry proprietary app based entirely on net/http in terms of any kind of HTTP communication, I feel like I can easily tell you are wildly exaggerating. Admin consoles and enterprise connectors are entirely irrelevant to many uses of an HTTP server. Hell, even Kubernetes' API server is built using net/http.

Yet many of those depend on having something like Apache, NGIX, HA Proxy, IIS,... taking care of the actual load.

There is frequently a reverse proxy in front of all web services. It’s got nothing to do with the quality of the implementation behind the curtains. And “the actual load” is by definition managed by the endpoint not the router.

I mean it would be trivial to implement that reverse proxy in Go. And I do mean trivial; Go also includes a reverse proxy utility, so you can implement something basic in about 5 LOC.

At this point it’s hard to believe you’re being genuine.

Post reply on HN