71–80 of 147 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And that’s just learning how to use the car. We’re talking about building one.
I think the car analogy kind of falls apart at this point. Using a computer and writing programs for a computer are both interacting with software. Take spreadsheets, for example: is making a spreadsheet analogous to building a car or to driving one? What about drag-and-drop visual programming?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume skywhopper is referring to undecidable and uncomputable problems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem
I don't really get how that's a critique of the ability to represent complexity on a computer well. After all, isn't a human mind constrained by P ?= NP in the same way as a computer architecture?
Anyone who says this: in the virtual world of computers, everything can be replicated, from complex physical phenomena to abstract ideas, and even your own mind. Does not understand computers well enough to be lecturing the world about the need for software "literacy". The assertion that computers can represent any of those things is a complete falsehood. Computers are great with complex mathematical models of physic…
And then the dawning realization, what fights the future would hold for them...
Anyone who says this: in the virtual world of computers, everything can be replicated, from complex physical phenomena to abstract ideas, and even your own mind. Does not understand computers well enough to be lecturing the world about the need for software "literacy". The assertion that computers can represent any of those things is a complete falsehood. Computers are great with complex mathematical models of physic…
I don't think he was talking about present day technology; rather, he was referring to abstract machines. Whoever taught you computer science must have had a very pessimistic attitude, which is surprising to me as most of the academics I've talked with think the computers of the distant future will have no limitations. In the preset day, though, we have limited time and must choose our battles carefully. I respect th…
This could mean a lot of liberal arts students. Academics aren't in any advantageous position to understand the progress of technology. Computers necessarily have limits because of their physical properties of matter and energy.
Thinking that "future = no limits = no scarcity = everyone gets everything they want even fantasy" is kind of a logical leap that most people in tech are not comfortable making. Maybe "academics" are more optimistic because they don't know anything, and it's easier to believe we'll have flying cars in the future than to realize that there will never be a time on Earth that it makes economical sense to fight gravity for an individual transport medium.
Anyone who says this: in the virtual world of computers, everything can be replicated, from complex physical phenomena to abstract ideas, and even your own mind. Does not understand computers well enough to be lecturing the world about the need for software "literacy". The assertion that computers can represent any of those things is a complete falsehood. Computers are great with complex mathematical models of physic…
DecoPerson and noxToken are right about this being a general statement about computing and not present day technology. Whether or not the human brain can be completely simulated by a machine is still an unanswered question but nothing I came across so far convinced me that it's not possible.
While it's true that not all mathematical problems can be solved algorithmically, that doesn't limit at all the kind of things a computer can simulate. Most physical phenomena don't have a mathematically precise answer and approximations are usually good enough. I hope I understood you correctly there.
If you say "computers can't correctly model everything" then I probably disagree with your definition of a "model". In my understanding of the word the concept of correctness doesn't even make sense. I'm convinced that models should be first and foremost be judged by their "usefulness".
To make this discussion more concrete, it would be very helpful if you could provide an example of something that cannot be modeled with a computer.
Web pages that have a few lines of text are unreadable on mobile devices and drain your battery.
Setting the spin speed on a washing machine takes ages because the computer polls for input only about once per second, so it misses most of your button presses. How to reconcile this if the clock speed is thousands to millions of cycles per second and the whole system has only a handful of inputs and outputs.
These are not tough technological limitations, but completely easily avoidable human failures. There can be nothing but negligence, cynicism and depression to explain them.
People would be a lot happier to just say "I guess it must be like this", or "My device is getting old and slow". A bit like "God works in mysterious ways" or "it must be fate" can often feel better than "our government is corrupt" or "I don't have any kind of plan".
I guess it's the same about any thing you feel passionate about. If you cared about clothes or food, seeing all the junk out there might make you less happy. A friend of mine was a barista. He wasn't happy that people were paying the same amount for worse coffee.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think he was talking about present day technology; rather, he was referring to abstract machines. Whoever taught you computer science must have had a very pessimistic attitude, which is surprising to me as most of the academics I've talked with think the computers of the distant future will have no limitations. In the preset day, though, we have limited time and must choose our battles carefully. I respect th…
> academics I've talked with think the computers of the distant future will have no limitations. This could mean a lot of liberal arts students. Academics aren't in any advantageous position to understand the progress of technology. Computers necessarily have limits because of their physical properties of matter and energy. Thinking that "future = no limits = no scarcity = everyone gets everything they want even fant…
But on the other, for somebody has programmed in the 60s, the computing power and memory we have nowadays probably seem "limitless" in comparison.
I'm taking the opposite opinion for the sake of argument: The more you understand about software, the more frustrated and disappointed you will be, as you see all the easily avoidable flaws around you. Web pages that have a few lines of text are unreadable on mobile devices and drain your battery. Setting the spin speed on a washing machine takes ages because the computer polls for input only about once per second, s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really get how that's a critique of the ability to represent complexity on a computer well. After all, isn't a human mind constrained by P ?= NP in the same way as a computer architecture?
We do not know that actually. While it might be true that classical mechanics is the only machine behind our brain, evolution is just as likely to have stumbled into a quantum computer design we have not yet discovered in the last billion years.