Very nice, but if you want to use it professionally you should consider having an alternative "clear text" version for recruiters and the like. The technically minded will find it nice but most people won't know what to do or what any of this means. And you could consider adding `ls`, `cd` and `exit` just for fun -- it was the first thing I've tried.
Maybe just have commands auto-execute if you click on links in the existing text? That would allow someone to experience the entire interface on a touch device! :>
E.g. there is **__contact__** in the page, bold and underlined, but you cannot click on it to do anything.
Good point, another solution might be something similar to https://ysap.sh/ which gives you a nice "page" formatted for the terminal when curl'ed and your usual HTML and CSS on the browser.
+1 for ls and cd. I would also suggest numbered output for ls, so that the user can select using the numeric keypad. Or, up/down nav, TUI-style. I wish ecommerce sites could be more like this.
I did something like this, in a much more limited form, when putting together my personal site a few weeks ago. https://1ps0.info/
I had a friend try to run 'sudo shutdown -r now'. It inspired a much more thorough approach to the terminal functionality, but I didnt want to rabbit hole too far.
As it stands, initially it was a cyberpunk theme but i wanted a vscode-like professional theme as default, so you can toggle between them through cli. Lots of fun to be had with eastereggs.
er, I assume that they made this site because they're far too good to work for anyone who doesn't want to take the time to find out how it works. In other words, recruiters need not apply.
I would love to hire this person (in theory), but every job I post gets hundreds of inbound applicants, and while hiring is one of the most important aspects of my job, it is second to delivering software with value. I really don’t have time to seek out every person out there who may have a resume, much less a quirky resume, so I send recruiters who work for me to find good candidates for top of funnel. I don’t think there is anything wrong with this.
This must be the most unintuitive result of all of mathematics. Its very interesting what a seemingly simple axiom like the axiom of choice can lead to -- simple as in 'even a 9-year old can understand it', the consequences are rather enormous and not simple at all.
Honestly, it's not that surprising if you learned the properties of infinity before, especially of uncountable infinity. If 2*Inf == Inf, and if a sphere has an infinity of points, it's not that surprising that you can make two spheres from those same points. The construction itself is of course much more impressive, I'm not downplaying it, but I don't think it's less intuitive than other properties of infinity.
My personal reckoning with this was learning that there are as many numbers in the [0,1] interval of the real line as on the whole real line.
The BT paradox includes the requirement that the pieces are separated and put back together using isometries of R3, which is _way_ more restrictive than isomorphism of sets (what you're talking about). So it's quite surprising from that point of view!
"The Axiom of Choice is obviously true, the well-ordering principle obviously false, and who can tell about Zorn's lemma?"
Well, the axiom of choice gives a lot of counterintuitive examples, with the Banach-Tarski paradox being the easiest to imagine by a non-mathematician.
Yet, I know no consequences that would be measurable in physics. To my knowledge, AoC is more like glue, which (paradoxically) makes quite a few things smoother, e.g., all Hilbert spaces have a basis. Otherwise one runs in a lot of theorems, in all corners of maths, with "this is always true for finite, for infinite we know that there are no counterexamples, yet we cannot prove that for all cases".
> Yet, I know no consequences that would be measurable in physics
One can build a physical device modeled off of a Turing machine that enumerates all proofs within ZFC. The machine halts if an inconsistency is discovered, and runs forever if not. Now a prediction can be made about a process in the physical universe whose outcome depends on the axiom of choice.
I’m not trying to sound facetious actually. Highly abstract mathematics plays a critical role in inductive inference (in the sense of speeding up universal search by mapping a search over program space to a search over proofs in formal systems). This appears to be the direction some recent ML research is heading, so it wouldn’t surprise me if a lot of “unphysical” axioms end influencing our ability to efficiently approximate Solomonoff induction.
Perhaps ironically, despite appearances, the process you propose does not depend on the axiom of choice.
This is because we can prove, in the small and generally trusted metatheory PRA, that ZFC is inconsistent if and only if ZF (= ZFC − AC) is inconsistent (if and only if IZF (= ZFC − AC − LEM) is inconsistent).
[ This metaproof rests on the fact that ZF can prove that the axiom of choice (AC) holds in "Gödel's sandbox" L, the "constructible universe", even if it might not hold in the universe of all sets. ]
In other words: Adding the axiom of choice to ZF doesn't cause new inconsistencies. In case ZF is consistent (a statement which most logicians believe), then ZFC is so as well.
Indeed, and one can give specific metatheorems in this direction:
For instance, regarding statements of the form "for all natural numbers x, there is a natural number y such that %", where in "%" no further quantifiers appear, there is no difference between ZFC (Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice), ZF (set theory without the axiom of choice) and IZF (set theory without the axiom of choice and without the law of excluded middle).
Any ZFC-proof of such a statement can be mechanically transformed to an IZF-proof, with just a modest increase in proof length.
As far as we can tell, GR implies, and we have measured, space-time is completely continuous. Draw a square on a piece of paper; or, better yet, outline a cube with some sticks: within that square (or cube) is an infinite set of points of either the integral or real cardinality — whichever you’d like.
The “no physical infinity” thing sounds like a very Greek sort of axiom — like their “nature abhors a vacuum” thing, etc.
To my mind GR (or at least the standard textbook version of it, anyway) _assumes_ that space-time is continuous, it does not _imply_ it as such. Continuity is baked into the foundations of any physical theory that is expressed in the language of differential equations.
You probably know this, but it's easy to confuse the map (a physical theory) with the territory (reality, which is far more complicated).
No, physicists do not think that space is like a tinily subdivided grid. Lots of physics would break if that were the case, including QM.
We have a lot of hints that the amount of information in any given space might be bounded, but yet that space appears continuous. How exactly you reconcile this is (one of) the mystery of quantum gravity.
Sure, we cannot measure infinity, but to be fair, all mathematical concepts (when looked at closely enough) are not something we measure directly.
Even if a kindergarten-level maths of "there are three apples," we do an abstraction. We need to decide that something is a separate object, an apple (how big or small should a fruit be an apple? if there is a bite, is it an apple? etc, etc) - usually with an assumption that all apples are the same (which we know is not true, but serves as an useful approximation).
pretend that
> David Hilbert famously argued that infinity cannot exist in physical reality. The consequence of this statement — still under debate today — has far-reaching implications.
What GP is suggesting is that 'cui bono' isn't a good explanation in most cases. It's always good to ask the question of whom benefits. But using it as an explanation for anything and everything is intellectually dishonest.
This isn't a serious argument, you can write 'shitty code' in Java too. In fact, I've seen more 'shitty' Java than 'shitty' Go, since I've seen far more Java projects than Go projects. It's possible that Go makes it particularly easy, but I somehow doubt that.
I can also recommend Edward Frenkel's (the guest of this video) book "Love and Math" on the subject. He writes as well as he talks, the book is very approachable, not just for a mathematically literate audience, but also for those who "don't like math". Its about the Langlands Program, but also about his own personal history of becoming a mathematician in the Soviet Union and his experiences with antisemitism during that time. Fascinating Stuff, even though it only barely touches the surface of his research.
We all did mistakes when we were teenagers, its part of the process. It takes courage to admit that. Whats the lesson to be learned here? Never be honest in the public ever again?
1. Yes, due to Covid -- more or less, at least it was a convenient excuse.
2. Absolutely not -- got a far better job offer 3 months after and took it: Better pay, more interesting projects, hands-on experience with big clients.
3. No, being unemployed for a short while does not carry social stigma where I come from. It does if you are unemployed for a longer period of time though.
This is definitly my favourite map app. The offline features are amazing and it has a great UI and operability. Routing for bicycles could be better, I ended up in the middle of the forest without clear path the other day, but this is more of an issue with old OSM datasets than with the app itself.
I thought about this for a while now and I think for the class of problems GP is referring to, no maintenance will actually be needed, the tools will just be discarded re-written again -- at least in one-man projects where no other person than the author is needed to create the tool. Maybe in the future some kind of pseudo-code between real code and natural language will be established. This kind of pseudo-code could be as expressive as code but more concise than natural language. I am not certain if it will ever replace actual software engineers for scopes beyond on-man projects.
That makes sense, but never underestimate how easy it is for a throwaway script or tool to become production-ized and a dependency for other production processes.
We've all seen that obscene production workflow built on a Google Sheet or Jupyter Notebook that now needs to support this or that new feature or integration... Add AI-generated tools to the pile.
