Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Lawrence Kesteloot
253 followers
253 followers
About
Posts

Post has attachment
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Add a comment...

I've always confused the term "2-dimensional" to mean either "a[1..2]" or "a[][]". In other words, a vector of length 2 for describing a position in a 2-dimensional space, or an array with 2 indices. I realized yesterday why this was: In computers we describe "a[][][]" as a 3-dimensional array, but in math that's a rank-3 array, and the "dimension" is the number of unique values that each index can take. I'd never noticed the incorrect usage in CS.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
"There’s a wonderful correspondence between programs that can be statically typed, and programs that can be statically understood by other people." http://www.sebastiansylvan.com/post/language-design-deal-breakers/ +Sebastian Sylvan 
Add a comment...

I just got an email from my mother in law that contained this sentence: "Can you email me the parts that you got so I can pass it on to her please?" Alongside this email, Google Inbox suggested that I create this reminder: "email me the parts that you got so I can pass trouble on to neighbor please".

It botched the "it" pronoun but got the "her" pronoun right. Pretty impressive.

It got "trouble" from "She's having trouble finding the remote control". In this case, the "it" referred to "part", so it didn't need substitution.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Just finished my clock project! It was on the back burner since 2009. Glad it's finally over! http://www.teamten.com/lawrence/projects/acrylic-pendulum-clock/
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Add a comment...

Post has shared content
Alright +Larry Gritz and others. I find that I want to disagree with this, but I don't have enough facts. My (brief) research (IPCC reports, etc.) has found that not only are the "worst case" scenarios not so bad, but are actually cheaper than the cost of preventing them.
My Criticism of CAGW:

A lot of the online arguments are over whether global temperatures are trending up and/or whether human production of greenhouse gases is the cause. As best I can tell, the evidence for the trend is good and the explanation plausible. The part of the story I find most unconvincing is the claim that warming on the scale suggested by the IPCC reports can be expected to have large net negative consequences—CAGW where "C" stands for "Catastrophic."

The reasons to be skeptical of that claim are straightforward. The present climate was not designed for us, so there is no a priori reason to expect that a climate a few degrees different will be much worse for us. Humans live across a range of climates much larger than the predicted change. The average temperature in Iowa is about 3.7°C higher than in Minnesota. That's about the temperature increase that the IPCC projects by 2100 on its high emissions scenario. Why would one expect that raising the temperature of Minnesota to that of Iowa would have catastrophic consequences?

The argument offered for catastrophe mostly consists of listing various adverse effects which are claimed to accompany warming. For some, such as more drought and worse hurricanes, there appears to be no evidence. Others, such as sea level rise, are real but not very serious—something under a meter by 2100, again on the high emissions scenario. The argument ignores or minimizes the good effects that can be expected—longer growing seasons, milder winters, a larger part of Earth's surface warm enough for humans, increased agricultural yield due to CO2 fertilization.

The only reason I can see to expect negative effects is that human activities are current optimized against the current environment. That would be a strong argument if we were talking about rapid change. But we are talking about sea level rise of millimeters a year, temperature increase of tenths of a degree a decade. That's plenty of time for farmers to adjust crop varieties and irrigation to changing circumstances, people to shift construction a few hundred feet further from the shoreline, for those affected in other ways to make other adjustments.

As I see it, the routine assumption that AGW will be catastrophic has two sources. One is reflexive conservatism, the view that change is presumptively bad. The other is the desire of many people to use AGW as an argument for things they already want done. That is repeatedly demonstrated in posts along the general lines of "if we do things to prevent warming and it turns out that warming isn't a problem, we will have produced lots of other good results in the process, so why worry about it?" It never seems to occur to the people making those comments that they have just confessed to a strong motive to believe in CAGW whether or not there is any good reason to.

For much more on my view of these issues, see:

http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/search?q=warming
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
The always-thoughtful Scott Alexander here describes the "Motte and Bailey Doctrine" (originally from Nicholas Shackel). His examples are of socially-controversial positions. I wonder what the programming-related examples would be. 
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
This may be OK Go's best video yet (and the song is fun too): OK Go - I Won't Let You Down - Official Video
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded