71–80 of 145 posts
Why does that make me think about x11->wayland core?
Because Wayland is worse than X11. Unfortunately, it is true that sometimes after your software design gets worse it gets better, but other times after it gets worse it gets worse. It's not correct to assume that something will get better just because it is currently worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Monotonic-only improvement is the path to getting trapped. Take chances, make mistakes, and get messy. The evolution disagrees.
Evolution regularly ends up in local optima that it struggles to get out from. Species go extinct all the time when there's no evolutionary path that solves its problems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Evolution regularly ends up in local optima that it struggles to get out from. Species go extinct all the time when there's no evolutionary path that solves its problems.
I didn't mean to say that evolution avoids local optima, but I wantend to say that it doesn't have to get "trapped", in the sense that it was able to produce such complex organisms as humans..
What so often happens is you make a plan like this, then business priorities change/things took longer than expected/people leave or join and then you wish you never started...
You know when you get to the point your data structures just make working on the code a breeze, when your library functions provide all the right low pieces to whip up new features quickly and easily with names and functionality that actually fit the domain... Basically, when all the pieces 'gel' :-D
That for me is programming nirvana :-D
I don't understand that this article at all or what it means by worse. It clearly defines what better means: that the architecture is such that implementing a feature is no harder than it absolutely has to be. So if it has to get worse first that means initially we're making it harder to implement the desired features? Why are we doing that? Are we counting a half-done, under-construction state? It's harder to implem…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Evolution is a satisficer not optimizer. All major trophic level breakthroughs are powered by evolving a reserve of efficiency in which mult-step searching can occur. multicellular life, collaboration between species, mutualism, social behavior, communication, society, civilization, language and cognition are all breakthroughs that permitted new feature spaces of exploration that required non-locally-optimal transiti…
I didn't say that evolution finds the optimal state, just wanted to highlight how far it was able to go, much farther it seems.. (like evolution of the eye) But your comment was refreshing, could you briefly expand on the "multicellular" life part? Did you mean that it enabled more non-locally-optimal transitions, or that it required them to appear?
> Take chances, make mistakes, and get messy.
But then seemed to indicate evolution disagrees.
I might be misunderstanding your point, but it sure seems like, evolution tries a bunch of stuff, and whatever reproduces kinda wins.
That seems like, take chances, make mistakes, get messy. That seems like the core of evolution.
Could you clarify or refine what you’re saying? The two seem at odds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Evolution is a satisficer not optimizer. All major trophic level breakthroughs are powered by evolving a reserve of efficiency in which mult-step searching can occur. multicellular life, collaboration between species, mutualism, social behavior, communication, society, civilization, language and cognition are all breakthroughs that permitted new feature spaces of exploration that required non-locally-optimal transiti…
I didn't say that evolution finds the optimal state, just wanted to highlight how far it was able to go, much farther it seems.. (like evolution of the eye) But your comment was refreshing, could you briefly expand on the "multicellular" life part? Did you mean that it enabled more non-locally-optimal transitions, or that it required them to appear?
Takes a lot of luck to evolve cooperation multiple times at once, much more likely to happen in a situation where the selection pressure is lower, not higher.
To boil it down simple: People are vaguely good and competent, they leave systems in a locally-optimal state. In general only changes that are "one step" are considered, and they allways leave things worse when you are currently in a locally optimal state. A multi-step solution will require a stop in a lower-energy state on the way to a better one. Monotonic-only improvement is the path to getting trapped. Take chanc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't say that evolution finds the optimal state, just wanted to highlight how far it was able to go, much farther it seems.. (like evolution of the eye) But your comment was refreshing, could you briefly expand on the "multicellular" life part? Did you mean that it enabled more non-locally-optimal transitions, or that it required them to appear?
You quoted this part, > Take chances, make mistakes, and get messy. But then seemed to indicate evolution disagrees. I might be misunderstanding your point, but it sure seems like, evolution tries a bunch of stuff, and whatever reproduces kinda wins. That seems like, take chances, make mistakes, get messy. That seems like the core of evolution. Could you clarify or refine what you’re saying? The two seem at odds.