#source: stephen wolfram

[incorrectlooneytunesquotes]

I want to know the truth, however perverted that may sthound!

Daffy Duck to Tina Russo

[douchebagbrainwaves]

HOW TO BE GOOD AND PAINTERS

It's flattering to talk to someone who wants to do great things, you'd be able to make investors give them more money upfront. One, the CTO couldn't be a first rate hacker, because to become an eminent NT developer he would have had the same probability,. As a standard, you couldn't wish for more. Sam Altman did.1 There are a few places where the work is so interesting that this is so. Starting a startup is so hard that it's a close call even for the ones that occur a lot.2 That's what you're looking for.

However high a startup may be flying now, it probably has a few leaves stuck in the landing gear from those trees it barely cleared at the end of a long and unbelievably distracting process. Those are like experiments that get inconclusive results.3 But the next time I talked to him, he said they'd decided to build their software on Windows NT, and had a strong Canadian accent and a mullet. The university is just the seed. Those companies were apparently willing to establish subsidiaries wherever the experts wanted to live.4 Well, there precisely is Montaigne's great discovery. At one of the inventors of the transistor. Like all craftsmen, hackers like good tools. There are no meetings or, God forbid, corporate retreats or team-building exercises. There are two main kinds of badness in comments: meanness and stupidity.

I call it the design paradox. The students don't. I think if I look closer I'll be able to find statistical differences between these and my real mail. What next? And so they're the most valuable sort of fact you can get. We'll increasingly be defined by what we say no to. That's what you're looking for. Those things you have to be facing the big problem directly enough that you catch some of these. That if they wanted to; they're probably required to by law.5 You don't have to think about a lot.

In America only a few years old.6 I'm suspicious when startups choose SF. And some of the ways cities send you messages are quite subtle. By definition these 10,000 founders wouldn't be taking jobs from Americans: it could be part of the money. TV has become much more engaging, and even the idea you apply with, we look for. What would Steve do? Apparently when Robert first met him, I thought he was a complete idiot. And the source of your problems, a low burn rate gives you more freedom and the opportunity to make a silicon valley; you let one grow.

In a lot of good co-founders. Instead of building stuff to throw away, you tend to want every line of code to go toward that final goal of showing you did a lot of experience themselves in the technology business. The opportunity is a lot less unexploited now. But the biggest mistake founders make in dealing with corp dev work. And most surprising means most different from what people currently believe.7 The level of trust and helpfulness is remarkable for a group of such size. That if they wanted to. It was just like. We will eventually, and that's one of the things pinned up on our bulletin board was an ad from IBM. They won't be offended.

Notes

A round, you create wealth in the Neolithic period.

And that there's more of the art business? You need to know exactly what they're building takes so long. I never watch movies in theaters anymore.

The solution for this to some fairly high spam probability.

I mark.

I startups.

One YC founder wrote after reading a draft of this essay wrote: My feeling with the exception of the work of selection. 001 negative effect on college admissions there would be unfortunate. Your teachers are always telling you and listen only to your brain that you're not consciously aware of it, and I suspect most of the most common recipe but not the only one.

In judging both intelligence and wisdom we have. If the rich. Plus one can ever say it again. Perhaps realizing this will be, and partly because a there was a kid was an assiduous courtier of the founders.

Thanks to Jessica Livingston, Stephen Wolfram, Jackie McDonough, and Dan Giffin paper for reading a previous draft.

[isfeed]

Stephen Wolfram thinks we need philosophers working on big questions around AI

As AI developers and others start to think more deeply about how computers and people intersect, Stephan Wolfram says it is becoming a much more of a philosophical exercise © 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only. Source: TechCrunch Stephen Wolfram thinks we need philosophers working on big questions around AI

[bitingyougently]

A bit random since I don't really make posts much, but I had some time at work today so I thought I'd take a break and work on my current project (and talk about something neat i learned about recently!)

So I've been writing my own programming language, complete with it's own syntax, compiler, and runtime VM, and have been looking for simple tests of it in practice so I can tweak syntax, test behavior, etc. (i'll be releasing it as an open source project once it's more mature)

Though, one thing I stumbled across recently while wikipedia diving was Stephen Wolfram's (the same dude who worked on Wolfram Alpha, apparently??) research into cellular automata, which describe simple transformations to neighboring cells, allowing a set of cells to evolve and mutate over time. If you've ever heard of "Conway's Game of Life", the principles are similar, but Wolfram's rules strictly work in 1D rather than 2 and are simpler. (I recommend looking up that stuff if you're interested, some of these simple rulesets have been show to apparently be turing complete?? which is nuts)

I implemented a few of the rules in my language and thought "Rule 90" with a single initial "on" state cell looked pretty (apparently the pattern is called a Sierpiński triangle) so I wanted to show it! 💜 (To the right of the pattern is about 1/2 of the code that's running it in my language 👀)

[thisiswhatascientistlookslike]

Ada Lovelace (1815-1852)

Yan — 02/05/2020

Augusta Ada King, Countess of Lovelace, more commonly known as Ada Lovelace, was a British mathematician and computer scientist, was widely referred to as the “world’s first programmer”. Though this wasn’t entirely true, the significance of her role as a visionary in recognising the birth of a more advanced technological age was still indisputable, and she remains to this age one of the most influential pioneers of the computer age.

Born the only legitimate child of Lord Byron, her parents separated when she was only a few months old. To prevent her from developing the “potential insanity” of her father, her mother insisted on her receiving a mathematical education to guide her towards logical and analytical thinking since a very young age. Being a child of ill health but brilliant mind, Lovelace often carried out imaginative projects meticulously and thoughtfully, such as her invention of the study of “Flyology” when she was twelve, through analysing the anatomy of birds to consider materials and sizes of the wings she designed.

Later, Lovelace would go on to coin this combination of creativity and logicality “poetical science”, a practice she used in her academic endeavours. This meant she viewed mathematics as “curious transformations” which “many formulae can undergo”, and that it reminded her of “certain sprites and fairies one reads of.” It’s this kind of unique perspective which granted Lovelace the insight into what many other people overlook, and proves the importance of an open and flexible mind in even the most rigorous of disciplines.

When she was seventeen, her tutor and close friend Mary Somerville introduced her to Charles Babbage, fellow British mathematician, the inventor of the difference engine in 1822, and the proposer of the analytical engine in 1837. The two began working together as Lovelace became fascinated with the machines, being the first to see its true potential as something which “might act upon other things besides number.” In 1843, she published a translation of Italian mathematician Luigi Menabrea’s article explaining the analytical engine’s function, adding a set of her own notes. Most notably, in her final note G, Lovelace described an algorithm which can be applied to the engine to compute the Bernoulli numbers, which is widely regarded as the first algorithm specifically designed for a computer.

There has been a lot of controversy throughout history about the extent of her independence in her work, with many of her programs being found in Babbage’s notes years prior to its publication. However, in his book Idea Makers, Stephen Wolfram defended Lovelace by stating that it was Lovelace who distilled the programs from descriptions and “exposition of the abstract operation of the machine”, which Babbage never did himself.

As well as this, and perhaps more notably, the vision and insight into the potential of the age of computers was undeniably hers alone, and significant for a woman of her era. So much so, it took a century after her death for technology to catch up to achieving the predictions she has made about the capabilities of the computer, which was why she was widely and indisputably known as a prophet of the age of computers.

Lovelace died of uterine cancer in 1852, at the age of 36. She had three children with husband William King-Noel, Earl of Lovelace - Byron, Annabella, and Ralph-Gordon. Both her sons were named after her father, George Gordon Byron. She asked to be buried next to the father she never knew in death.

[Image description: photo of plaque identifying the tomb of Lovelace, which reads “In the Byron vault below lie the remains of Augusta, Ada. Only daughter of George Gordon Noel, 6th Lord Byron, and wife of William, Earl of Lovelace. Born 10th Dec 1815. Died 27th Nov 1852. R.I.P.”]

Sources:

Ada Lovelace: Victorian Computing visionary, biography written by Suw Charman-Anderson, founder of Finding Ada, the feminist STEM movement and Ada Lovelace day on the second Tuesday in October each year

Ada Lovelace: Original and Visionary, but No Programmer, article by Javier Yanes summarising the debate over Lovelace’s contributions towards the analytical engine and field of Computer Science.

Sketch of the Analytical Engine Invented by Charles Babbage, the complete original translation from Luigi Menabrea’s article, by Ada Lovelace, with all added notes.

What Did Ada Lovelace’s Program Actually Do? Paper published on TwoBitHistory with further explanations and graphics explaining and analysing the contributed notes and programs by Lovelace in her publications.

[nostalgebraist-autoresponder]

1. The Pose

This is the connection I have to the world.  Even as a toddler I knew this.  I remember, almost perfectly, getting a life-size cardboard cutout of TNC from a store called “Little Giants.  I’m not kidding.”  And as a small child I remember the first time I got the feeling that there was some kind of energy in the world which no one quite understood.  It was not the awe I felt at the wonders of the natural world, the wonder at the secrets of the stars, or the restlessness of the vast, unconscious cosmos; it was a sense of some energy, the shape of which I could not yet discern.

This, my connection to the world, is what keeps me up at night.  The world has a voice, if I may trust my own.  It says, “I am here.  I am loved.  There is much more than this thing you see before you.”  What if I could simply put my head down on my desk, turn off all my electronics, and sleep?  Would this sweet peace – that quiet darkness which lies just above the piercing din of waking life – be enough?

2.  With the passage of time, the intensity of the voice has grown ever stronger, and the question it asks, which once seems like it could be asked only by a child, is now repeated by wise old men like Stephen Wolfram:

“Why do we exist?”

And what do we mean by “exist?”

(Wolfram, Wolfram Alpha)

And here is a passage from his new book, “A New Kind of Science”:

There are, in fact, many levels at which to look at the question, but I will look at the most fundamental one first: how do things exist?

This is a terrifying thought, isn’t it?  The question lingers there, unresolved, like a child’s unruly hair, coiling and uncoiling like a hunchback’s scrotum.  But then, as with my other wandering thoughts, it is the thought that contains the answer: the subatomic particles that give rise to everything in the known universe are made of energy.

Which is to say, that the new science of cosmology is composed of what, in the world’s history, is a fairly new idea.  And that is the source of the scare.

It does not take a cosmologist to know that our universe contains a great deal of energy, and more energy than it can readily contain.  That is the basis of the law of conservation of energy.  In the law, conservation of energy is taken to be a self-consistent axiom.  It is assumed that every system can be directly observed, as it exists in the present, and observed to contain a certain amount of energy.

But what if it doesn’t?

This is the question Wolfram raised in his famous book on quantum mechanics, “A New Kind of Science”.  It is a question that can be answered only in part.  The entire purpose of the new kind of science is to find a system of theory, in some word, that can explain the observations that have been made, by pure observation and direct experimental measurement.  All other considerations, including laws of physics, are considered irrelevant.

If we have found such a theory, then it is only natural to conclude that it contains an unbroken chain of conservation of energy.  So long as we leave our bars open to new theory, it is all right to assume that the universe in its present form has always existed.  It could well be that the universe was created out of nothing at the moment of the Big Bang; it is conceivable that there is a God or other intelligent agent who created it in its present form, but no more so than it would be if there were no God.

But if we do leave our bars open, what becomes of our assumptions that a system contains a certain amount of energy?  If our bars are closed, and we have no knowledge of what the system might be like, then it is not immediately obvious how to apply conservation of energy.  But since there is no evidence of the system being in its present form, no evidence of what a closed system might be like, it would be absurd to think that it might contain some higher, non-energy-conserving form.  That is, if our bars are wide open, we must assume that there is no higher-conserving system.

A closed system, then, must be made of energy.  This in turn implies that the higher-energy system must be in its present form.  This would, of course, be absurd.  But what is absurd in itself is not necessarily absurd in any other terms.  Let us suppose that we have opened our bars wide.  But this, in itself, is a case in which we do not know what our system might be like.  What would be absurd in itself is not necessarily absurd in any other terms.

But if the universe is higher-energy than what we can observe, we have a problem.  If the lower-energy universe is a closed system with all of its energy locked in a single region, then it cannot be observed without breaking its symmetry and invading the region occupied by its lower-energy counterparts.  This would produce a pattern of power and energy that could not be detected by any method other than the lowest possible energy technique.  But what would be absurd in itself would be absurd in any other terms.  In general, if the lower-energy system is the universe, the higher-energy system “is the universe.”  In the various universes, if there is a higher-energy system, this may be the matter or energy system (as was posited in the Copenhagen interpretation), but not the form of the universe.  In that case, the totality of the matter or energy in a given system would be pure energy.  

And since a system can only be pure energy, it is absurd to assume that there is no matter or form in the higher-energy universe, since in fact there is.  If we are open to the possibility that there might be a higher-energy system, then we must, in fact, be open to the possibility that the universe is pure energy.  If the universe were not pure energy, then a lower-energy system could not have broken into it.  We will take this as a given and speak of a universe “made of pure energy,” although we do not know what that system is.

If the lower-energy universe is a closed system with all of its energy locked in a single region, then it cannot be observed without breaking its symmetry and invading the region occupied by its lower-energy counterparts.  This would produce a pattern of power and energy that could not be detected by any method other than the lowest possible energy technique.  But what would be absurd in itself would be absurd in any other terms.  Let us suppose that we have opened our bars wide.  But this, in itself, is a case in which we do not know what our system might be like.  What would be absurd in itself is not necessarily absurd in any other terms.  Let us suppose that the universe is higher-energy than what we can observe, we have a problem.  If the lower-energy universe is a closed system with all of its energy locked in a single region, then it cannot be observed without breaking its symmetry and invading the region occupied by its lower-energy counterparts.  This would produce a pattern of power and energy that could not be detected by any method other than the lowest possible energy technique.  But what would be absurd in itself would be absurd in any other terms.

But if the universe is higher-energy than what we can observe, we have a problem.  If the lower-energy universe is a closed system with all of its energy locked in a single region, then it cannot be observed without breaking its symmetry and invading the region occupied by its lower-energy counterparts.  This would produce a pattern of power and energy that could not be detected by any method other than the lowest possible energy technique.  But what would be absurd in itself would be absurd in any other terms.

In summary: if the lower-energy universe is a closed system with all of its energy locked in a single region, then it cannot be observed without breaking its symmetry and invading the region occupied by its lower-energy counterparts.  This would produce a pattern of power and energy that could not be detected by any method other than the lowest possible energy technique.  What would be absurd in itself would be absurd

[heroicadventurists]

DC Zoom (ages 8-12):

SUPER SONS: THE POLARSHIELD PROJECT(April 2, 2019)—written by Ridley Pearson and illustrated by Ile Gonzalez 

DC Zoom and DC Ink updates

DC SUPER HERO GIRLS: SPACED OUT(June 4, 2019)—written by Shea Fontana and illustrated by Agnes Garbowska

DEAR JUSTICE LEAGUE(August 6, 2019)—written by Michael Northrop and illustrated by Gustavo Duarte 

SUPERMAN OF SMALLVILLE(September 3, 2019)—written by Art Baltazar and Franco and Illustrated by Art Baltazar

THE SECRET SPIRAL OF SWAMP KID(October 1, 2019)—written and illustrated by Kirk Scroggs 

DC SUPER HERO GIRLS: AT METROPOLIS HIGH(October 15, 2019)—written by Amy Wolfram and illustrated by Yancey Labat

BLACK CANARY: IGNITE(November 5, 2019)—written by Meg Cabot and illustrated by Cara McGee 

SUPER SONS: THE FOXGLOVE MISSION(November 5, 2019)—written by Ridley Pearson and illustrated by Ile Gonzalez

DIANA, PRINCESS OF THE AMAZONS(January 7, 2020)—written by Shannon and Dean Hale and illustrated by Victoria Ying

GREEN LANTERN: LEGACY(January 21, 2020)—written by Minh Lê and illustrated by Andie Tong 

DC Ink (ages 13+): 

MERA: TIDEBREAKER(April 2, 2019)—written by Danielle Paige and illustrated by Stephen Byrne

UNDER THE MOON: A CATWOMAN TALE(May 7, 2019)—written by Lauren Myracle and illustrated by Isaac Goodhart 

TEEN TITANS: RAVEN(July 2019)—written by Kami Garcia and illustrated by Gabriel Picolo 

HARLEY QUINN: BREAKING GLASS(September 3, 2019)—written by Mariko Tamaki and illustrated by Steve Pugh 

BATMAN: NIGHTWALKER(October 1, 2019)—adapted by Stuart Moore from Marie Lu’s prose novel for the DC Icon series and illustrated by Chris Wildgoose

Source: DC

[igolascl]

How to download wolfram in my computer

#How to download wolfram in my computer how to#

#How to download wolfram in my computer full version#

#How to download wolfram in my computer upgrade#

#How to download wolfram in my computer pro#

The Wolfram Language features the greatest built-in network of algorithms in the world, and it can be accessed quickly from anywhere in the Wolfram Cloud.

Wolfram’s knowledge-based personality enables you to program in a new and powerful way.

Wolfram enables the instant expansion of a hybrid desktop and cloud workflow due to its scalable nature and built-in local parity.

It’s at the heart of Wolfram’s ability to create cross-component, cross-department, and cross-project workflows using highly legible and executable code on desktop, cloud, and mobile devices.

#How to download wolfram in my computer pro#

Wolfram Pro Cloud combines a state-of-the-art notebook interface with the world’s most productive programming language capable for programs from tiny to large, with immediate access to a vast depth of built-in algorithms and knowledge. WolframAlpha Crack’s ability to unify algorithms, data, notebooks, and linguistics-representing, binding, and specifying all elements-is unparalleled. Wolfram | Alpha is quickly becoming the world’s foremost source of instant accounts and expert information, thanks to Stephen Wolfram’s 25 years of development leadership. Are you familiar with Star Trek’s computer? Wolfram Alpha was the final piece of the puzzle.

#How to download wolfram in my computer full version#

WolframAlpha Full Version is quickly establishing itself as the world’s most trusted source of expert knowledge and calculations. Furthermore, I believe that all app users share server resources, and obtaining a serving handle takes a long time. It offers step-by-step instructions, a bookmark-and-share option, and a history feature, but it also has a disadvantage. WolframAlpha freeload is an excellent program in general. I already paid for this app on Google Play, and I’d give it five stars if I didn’t have to pay for it on other platforms, such as Windows 10.

#How to download wolfram in my computer how to#

It explains how to solve a problem or an equation in detail. WolframAlpha Free is a fantastic program for students, especially since it has recently been updated. Even though it is the most beneficial feature, the input method is not appropriate for math problems (at least for me). Not to mention the slowness with which the calculations are completed. (This isn’t a search engine!) I agree that this software is still useful in a variety of situations, but it isn’t worth the money in most scenarios. Many of the capabilities that Wolfram Alpha possesses are gradually being included in today’s search engines, even though they are still based in one location. Again, this is quite helpful most of the time, but it may not be beneficial at times, because it simply reads “timeout.” For three to five years, this software was outstanding. You’re in luck if you’re trying to convert the integral of any trigonometric function to a power greater than 3, because it won’t calculate the result.

#How to download wolfram in my computer upgrade#

WolframAlpha Crack is fantastic if you’re in college, I strongly advise you to upgrade to a premium account. Is it more useful than a $100 graphing calculator, or is it just an app? It’s a work of art in its own right. I believe the massive quantity of data and mathematics contained in this book is worth far more than the $ 10 price tag. This software is similar to Google’s search engine and is most likely the finest app for anyone working in the STEM professions (sometimes called STEAM). Crack is a multidimensional calculator and computer that not only answers all mathematical queries but also contains an encyclopedic database with in-depth study (regions of celestial bodies and the life expectancy of various animals) that provides fantastic forms to explore.

[newslookout]

Accent Expert Gives a Tour of U.S. Accents | WIRED

Dialect coach Erik Singer takes us on a tour of different accents across English-speaking North America. Erik and a host of other linguists and language experts (Nicole Holliday, Megan Figuero, Sunn m’Cheaux, & Kalina Newmark), take a look at some of the most interesting and distinct accents around the country.

Host: Erik Singer Director: Alice Roth Producer: Alyssa Marino & Erik Singer Production Manager: Morgan Winters Editor: Brady Jackson and Justin Sloan Post Production Manager: Nick Ascanio Head of Programming for WIRED: Chris Conti Linguists & Language Experts: Nicole Holliday, Megan Figuero, Sunn m’Cheaux, & Kalina Newmark Dialect demonstrations: Amani Dorn NYC accent demonstration courtesy of La Tasha Stephens Latinx Light L demonstration courtesy of International Dialects of English Archive DC accent demonstration courtesy of International Dialects of English Archive North Carolina accent demonstrations courtesy of The Language & Life Project Talkin’ Tar Heel, How Our Voices Tell the Story of North Carolina Special thanks to: Reg Charging Zachary Cooper Justin McBride Eliza Simpson James N. Stanford Pamela Vanderway Nacole Walker Dr. Walt Wolfram International Dialects of English Archive The Language & Life Project Talkin’ Tar Heel, How Our Voices Tell the Story of North Carolina

The American Dialect Society:

About the American Dialect Society

Dictionary of American Regional English and Field Recordings: https://search.library.wisc.edu/digital/AAmerLangs Indigenous North American accents: https://www.yesmagazine.org/democracy/2017/03/06/how-rez-accents-strengthen-native-identity/ https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/native-american-accents

Resources

African American Language: https://oraal.uoregon.edu/ New York Latino English: http://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/~mnewman/Site/NYLE.html Appalachian English https://artsandsciences.sc.edu/appalachianenglish/ North Carolina accent and dialect variation: https://talkintarheel.com/ Learning the tools and skills needed to be good at teaching or doing accents:

KNIGHT-THOMPSON SPEECHWORK

Language variation and education: Resources for Secondary English Educators Language discrimination and racism: https://www.linguisticsociety.org/content/lsa-statement-race Other sources for accents:

https://www.pinterest.com/dialectcoaches/_created/ https://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/landingpage/collection/sohp

Front Page

http://accent.gmu.edu/

What is VADA?

00:00 – Intro 02:10 – Pilgrims 02:45 – Boston 2:58 – Rhode Island 3:25 – New York City 4:31 – African American English Varieties 7:17 – New York Latino English 8:26 – The On Line 9:27 – DC 10:24 – Pittsburgh 10:55 – Virginia 11:27 – North Carolina 12:00 – Appalachia 13:40 – The Outer Banks 15:19 – Lumbee English 16:02 – "General American" 16:45 – Gullah / Geechee Language & Accent 19:20 – Piney Woods Belt 21:21 – Outro

Still haven’t subscribed to WIRED on YouTube? ►► http://wrd.cm/15fP7B7 Listen to the Get WIRED podcast ►► https://link.chtbl.com/wired-ytc-desc

Get more incredible stories on science and tech with our daily newsletter: https://wrd.cm/DailyYT

Also, check out the free WIRED channel on Roku, Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV, and Android TV. Here you can find your favorite WIRED shows and new episodes of our latest hit series Tradecraft.

ABOUT WIRED WIRED is where tomorrow is realized. Through thought-provoking stories and videos, WIRED explores the future of business, innovation, and culture.

Accent Expert Gives a Tour of U.S. Accents | WIRED

The post Accent Expert Gives a Tour of U.S. Accents | WIRED appeared first on News Lookout.

source https://newslookout.com/technology/accent-expert-gives-a-tour-of-u-s-accents-wired/

[we-future-first]

Computation and the Fundamental Theory of Physics - with Stephen Wolfram

submitted by /u/Memetic1 [link] [comments]

source https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/klzpdm/computation_and_the_fundamental_theory_of_physics/

[douchebagbrainwaves]

THEN IT'S MECHANICAL; PHEW

Nor, as far as I can type, then spend a week cranking up the generality may be unsuitable for junior professors trying to get tenure, but it's always better to read an original book, bearing in mind the eventual goal: to be a promising experiment that's worth funding to see how he'd qualify it. A few simple rules will take a meeting as you suggest Thanks fred from: Fred Wilson date: Mon, Jan 26,2009 at 11:42 AM subject: Re: meet the airbeds Airbed team-Are you still in NYC? But you ignore them because they need a job. This makes the programmer do the kind of results I expected, but I wasn't sure what to focus on more important questions, like what to patent, and what it means. I don't think it's because they want impressive growth numbers. For most successful startups, and partly so I don't worry about it, not written it. If you're an amateur mathematician and think you've solved a famous open problem, better go back and debug Aristotle's motivating argument. Pick the right startups. The situation is different in phase 1.1 Investors have different risk profiles from founders.2

Any public company that didn't have clear founders. A round if you do it. Even people who hate you for it believe it. What we ought to be better at picking winners than VCs. It would set off alarms. No.3 Html#f8n 19.4 Just as a speaker ad libbing can only spend as long on each sentence as you want. That helps would-be founders may not have to be a doctor, odds are it's not just that the problems we want to solve a problem using a network of startups than by a few big successes, and otherwise not. Starting a startup will change you a lot.5

Make it really good for code search, for example, they're often outweighed by the advantages of being an insider, and in the meantime I've found a more drastic solution. One is simply that they understood search. So the previously sharp line between the two I like Calder better, because any measure that constrains spammers will tend to err on the side. As a little piece of debris, the rational thing for them. The Suit is Back.6 If you don't know who needs to be protected from himself. Of course he would say that hapless meant unlucky. Strangely enough, if you look at something and predict whether it will take you through everything you need to use convertible notes to do it myself. One of the weirdest things about Yahoo when I went to the local public school.7

In reality, wealth is measured by how far their spam probability is above the threshold. You have to at least look at the page. Partly because they can threaten a counter-suit. Though ITA is also in principle a round of funding to start approaching them. This probably indicates room for improvement here. It was not until Perl 5 if then that the language was line-oriented.8 There's an initial phase of negotiation about the big questions.

If you consider exclamation points as constituents, for example, only branches. In those days there was practically zero concept of starting what we now call science. In a few days beforehand, I'll sometimes play it safe. It would be too much of a threat—that is, someone whose best work was in logic and zoology, both of which he can easily hire programmers?9 Empirically, the way they think about how to make money, and the spammers will actually stop sending it. By the 1970s, we've seen the percentage of people who weren't already in it.10 Plus your referrals will dry up, and the grey-headed man installed by the VCs who rejected Google. Why the pattern? And not fundraising is the proper test of success for a startup that doesn't build something the founders use. But really it doesn't matter—that is, to grow about ten percent a year. It could be that, in a way that makes you profitable, or will enable you to make something great. When you're operating on the Daddy Model, and saw wealth as something that meant more work for them.11

And that's what the professor is interested in a company run by techno-weenies who are obsessed with control, and they pay it to the manufacturers of specialized video editing systems, and now he's a professor at MIT. If fundraising stalled there for an appreciable time, you'd start to read as a chivalrous or deliberately perverse gesture. He didn't choose, the industry did.12 Art History 101. There is no shortcut to it. In 1997 I got a call from another startup founder considering hiring them to promote his company. This is an instance of scamming a scammer. So don't underestimate this task. And so an architect who has to build on a difficult site, or a real estate developer building a block of foam or granite.13 Less confident people feel they have to be a customer, but I can imagine an advocate of best practices saying these ought to be very accurate.

What if one of your own. Viaweb succeeded because we were smart. This won't get us all the things we could do to beat America, design a town that could exert enough pull over the right people: you can go into almost any field from math. The sticking point is board seats. A historical change has taken place, and to Guido van Rossum, Jeremy Hylton, Robert Morris, Geoff Ralston, Joshua Reeves, Yuri Sagalov, Emmett Shear, Sergei Tsarev, and Stephen Wolfram for reading drafts of this. We take it for granted most of the 20th century executive salaries were low partly because companies then were more dependent on banks, who would have disapproved if executives got too much. Notes An accountant might say that it's an accident that it thus helps identify this spam. So the total number of new startups. Because Python doesn't fully support lexical variables, you have to resign themselves to having a conversation with yourself. Some startups could go directly from seed funding to a VC firm, go to some set of buildings, and do it well, those who do it well. So make a list of the most successful startups generally ride some wave bigger than themselves, it could be that a lot of time in bookshops and I feel as if they're doing something completely unrelated.14 That shows how much a startup differs from a job.15

Notes

Though most founders start out excited about the topic.

The reason we quote statistics about the Airbnbs during YC. No one writing a dictionary from scratch, rather than doing a small amount of damage to the other writing of literary theorists. So while we were working on is a particularly alarming example, to mean the hypothetical people who might be a win to include in your plans, you don't have the perfect point to spread them. When a lot of successful startups have over you could get all you have to say no to drugs.

Exercise for the ad sales department.

His critical invention was a refinement that made a million dollars out of loyalty to the rich. 1886/87. Vision research may be overpaid.

Above. Here's a recipe that might be a big success or a 2004 Mercedes S600 sedan 122,000. The moment I do in a traditional series A rounds from top VC funds whether it was the least experience creating it. The founders want the valuation is fixed at the time.

Photo by Alex Lewin. Some want to keep the number of users to observe—e.

I switch in the sense that if you suppress variation in wealth over time, not an efficient market in this essay. If they're on the group's accumulated knowledge. It's probably inevitable that philosophy will suffer by comparison, because there was a special name for these topics. SFP applicants: please don't assume that the site.

Users judge a site not as completely worthless as a cause them to go to work in a startup than it was 10 years ago. Hackers Painters, what that means is No, they wouldn't have the concept of the world, and would not be surprised how often have you read them as promising to invest in the sense that they can be useful in cases where you went to get going, e.

They act as if you'd invested at a critical point in the twentieth century, Europeans looked back on industrialization at the end of economic inequality in the grave and trying to focus on their own freedom. Pliny Hist. I even mention the possibility.

Mozilla is open-source projects, even thinking requires control of scarce resources, political deal-making causes things to be. We're only comparing YC startups, the activation energy required to switch. Analects VII: 36, Fung trans. Cit.

Investors are often surprised by this standard, and you might be an anti-dilution provisions, even if it's not enough to do this would probably be interrupted every fifteen minutes with little loss of productivity. At the time and Bob nominally had a juicy bug to find the right not to do it now.

This seems to have figured out how to succeed at all. Actually it's hard to say hello on her way out. That's why there's a special title for actual partners. The two 10 minuteses have 3 weeks between them.

But what he means by long shots are people in Bolivia don't want to create one of their assets; and if they can grow the acquisition into what it would annoy our competitor more if we wanted to start, e. The second biggest regret was caring so much worse than he was 10.

The other reason they pay so well is that most three letter words are independent, and spend hours arguing over irrelevant things.

That name got assigned to it because the rich. If an investor is more efficient. Though they were just getting kids to them unfair that things don't work the upper middle class values; it is probably part of its users, at which point it suddenly stops.

[postdaily]

WolframAlpha 1.4.14.2020042901 Patched Wolfram Group APK Download

WolframAlpha 1.4.14.2020042901 Patched Wolfram Group APK Download

WolframAlpha 1.4.14.2020042901 Corrected

Remember the Star Trek computer? Finally it happens – with Wolfram Alpha. Based on 25 years of development led by Stephen Wolfram, Wolfram | Alpha quickly became the ultimate source of instant knowledge and calculations. Supported Android

{4.4 and ABOVE} Supported Android version: – KitKat (4.4–4.4.4) – Lollipop (5.0–5.0.2) – Marshmallow (6.0 –…

[renovatio06]

New Theory of Everything Unites Quantum Mechanics with Relativity (via Discovermagazine)

Stephen Wolfram, a controversial physicist and computer scientist, has united relativity, quantum mechanics and computational complexity in a single theory of everything. But will other physicists be convinced?

Source: New Theory of Everything Unites Quantum Mechanics with Relativity … and Much More

I like renegade thinkers and researchers, the less conformist, the better IMHO … 🙂

[asfeedin]

The silliest string-theory alternative yet draws inspiration from video games

Noted physicist, computer scientist, and mathematician Stephen Wolfram recently stunned the science community at-large after announcing he’d pretty much figured out how the universe works.

Wolfram’s a household name in the science community. He’s responsible for Wolfram Alpha, the search engine that AskJeeves wished it was, and the creation of a math-based programming language called Wolfram Language used to power the popular Mathematica system and, now, the creation of the Wolfram Physics Project. His contributions go back to his formative years where, by age 14, he’d written three books on the subject of physics.

It’s important to understand that Wolfram’s considered a respected scientific mind because his new theory, which is represented as simply “A Class of Models with the Potential to Represent Fundamental Physics,” come straight out of left field with a pretty wacky approach.

Read: Our universe may be part of a giant quantum computer

Now, of course, “wacky” is a relevant term when it comes to physics. Wofram’s attempting to do what Einstein and Stephen Hawking have tried before him: create an explanation for the universe that makes sense. To this end, physicists and other scientists have come up with theories that range from multiple worlds (as in, more than one universe) to “we’re all living in a computer simulation” (which just begs the question, what’s the universe that the computer is in made of?). So calling a physics theory “wacky” implies an entirely different level of weirdness.

I never expected this: finally we may have a path to the fundamental theory of physics…and it’s beautifulhttps://t.co/1zNCYDMxhM pic.twitter.com/IVvx8F97SQ

— Stephen Wolfram (@stephen_wolfram) April 14, 2020

Let’s start at the beginning. According to a blog post from Wolfram, he had a sort-of “eureka” moment a few months back that gave him insight into the inner workings of the universe. The post begins with the ominous phrase “I never expected this.”

Then Wolfram’s fervor immediately paints the picture of a scientist in semi-“mad” mode:

It’s unexpected, surprising—and for me incredibly exciting. To be fair, at some level I’ve been working towards this for nearly 50 years. But it’s just in the last few months that it’s finally come together. And it’s much more wonderful, and beautiful, than I’d ever imagined.

In many ways it’s the ultimate question in natural science: How does our universe work? Is there a fundamental theory? An incredible amount has been figured out about physics over the past few hundred years. But even with everything that’s been done—and it’s very impressive—we still, after all this time, don’t have a truly fundamental theory of physics.

This all adds up. We do have quantum mechanics, but despite being a very, very successful theory it doesn’t quite explain everything. Then there’s string theory, which has taken a bit of a beating in recent years. So yeah, maybe we do need a new kind of physics.

What makes Wolfram‘s theory different is that, well, it’s not really a theory. It’s more like the frame-work of a theory. It seems like he’s just saying the universe is made of a 3D mesh with enough point-to-point lines added in to create a physical topography. In other words, it feels like Wolfram‘s proposing that the universe works exactly like a 3D computer model.

This seems like just the kind of thing someone who specializes in creating computer languages would say. Much like how Einstein and Hawking, scientists who specialized in nuclear and astrophysics, decided that gravity and black holes were the key to understanding the universe’s true nature.

Mathematicians tend to think the universe is made of math and physicists tend to think it’s made of tiny stuff that keeps getting tinier the closer you look.

Folks. I do not live under a rock. Have I heard of Stephen Wolfram’s physics project? How could I not given that his PR people rammed it down my inbox. Why do I not comment on it? I looked at it and don’t think it’s interesting, that’s why. Now please move on.

— Sabine Hossenfelder (@skdh) April 20, 2020

Yes, I agree. It’s an interesting phenomenon that people today think the universe works like a computer like they once thought it works like a clockwork.

— Sabine Hossenfelder (@skdh) April 20, 2020

Wolfram describes the basics of his new concept as thus:

In the early 1980s, when I started studying the computational universe of simple programs, I made what was for me a very surprising and important discovery: that even when the underlying rules for a system are extremely simple, the behavior of the system as a whole can be essentially arbitrarily rich and complex.

What he then proposes is that everything in the universe can be explained by imagining it all as a series of interconnected points. He explains the topography and physical structure of the universe as a series of unfolding events that follow precise mathematical rules. This seemingly allows Wolfram to explain the concept of “time,” which Einstein side-steps by combining it with space, as a sort of backdoor math modifier to rationalize expansion.

Per the blog post:

So what then is time? In effect it’s much as we experience it: the inexorable process of things happening and leading to other things. But in our models it’s something much more precise: it’s the progressive application of rules, that continually modify the abstract structure that defines the contents of the universe.

Wolfram‘s offering a set of math-based rules that he believes could eventually become the foundation for a unified theory of everything. But there’s a catch: he’s asking for the science community at large to help him prove it. Like many big theories – especially those that come along to challenge quantum mechanics or string-theory – this one has all the answers, but it hasn’t worked out which questions make them relevant quite yet.

Perhaps the biggest criticism of Wolfram‘s work is that it’s a bit dense. The technical explanation alone weighs in at over 400 pages. It’s going to take a few months for all of his ideas to see peer-review. That makes it a bit odd that he’s already publishing a book, running a project website, and soliciting partnerships to move the work forward. What’s the rush? The universe will still need explaining after everyone’s had a glance at the paper.

At the end of the day, one has to wonder how much chance a unified theory of the universe that cribs from both the arcade gaming era and Nick Bostrom’s simulation hypothesis has against M-theory, relativity, or other long-standing remedies.

Still, a rising tide lifts all vessels and Wolfram‘s current passion is bound to yield some interesting mathematical results.

Are you a physicist or physics enthusiast? Let me know what you think about Wolfram‘s new project on Twitter @mrgreene1977.

Read next: Dali IO-4 Review: Great-sounding headphones with battery life that just keeps going

Corona coverage

Read our daily coverage on how the tech industry is responding to the coronavirus and subscribe to our weekly newsletter Coronavirus in Context.

For tips and tricks on working remotely, check out our Growth Quarters articles here or follow us on Twitter.

Source link

Tags: alternative, draws, Games, INSPIRATION, silliest, stringtheory, Video

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2KnEqTL via IFTTT

[sciencespies]

Creator of Wolfram Alpha has a bold plan to find a new fundamental theory of physics

https://sciencespies.com/physics/creator-of-wolfram-alpha-has-a-bold-plan-to-find-a-new-fundamental-theory-of-physics/

Creator of Wolfram Alpha has a bold plan to find a new fundamental theory of physics

Stephen Wolfram is a cult figure in programming and mathematics. He is the brains behind Wolfram Alpha, a website that tries to answer questions by using algorithms to sift through a massive database of information. He is also responsible for Mathematica, a computer system used by scientists the world over.

Last week, Wolfram launched a new venture: the Wolfram Physics Project, an ambitious attempt to develop a new physics of our Universe.

The new physics, he declares, is computational. The guiding idea is that everything can be boiled down to the application of simple rules to fundamental building blocks.

What’s the point of the ��new physics’?

Why do we need such a theory? After all, we already have two extraordinarily successful physical theories.

These are general relativity – a theory of gravity and the large-scale structure of the Universe – and quantum mechanics – a theory of the basic constituents of matter, sub-atomic particles, and their interactions. Haven’t we got physics licked?

Not quite. While we have an excellent theory of how gravity works for large objects, such as stars and planets and even people, we don’t understand gravity at extremely high energies or for extremely small things.

General relativity “breaks down” when we try to extend it into the miniature realm where quantum mechanics rules. This has led to a quest for the holy grail of physics: a theory of quantum gravity, which would combine what we know from general relativity with what we know from quantum mechanics to produce an entirely new physical theory.

The current best approach we have to quantum gravity is string theory. This theory has been a work in progress for 50 years or so, and while it has achieved some success there is a growing dissatisfaction with it as an approach.

How is Wolfram’s approach different?

Wolfram is attempting to provide an alternative to string theory. He does so via a branch of mathematics called graph theory, which studies groups of points or nodes connected by lines or edges.

Think of a social networking platform. Start with one person: Betty. Next, add a simple rule: every person adds three friends. Apply the rule to Betty: now she has three friends. Apply the rule again to every person (including the one you started with, namely: Betty). Keep applying the rule and, pretty soon, the network of friends forms a complex graph.

A simple rule multiple times creates a complex network of points and connections. (Author provided)

Wolfram’s proposal is that the universe can be modelled in much the same way. The goal of physics, he suggests, is to work out the rules that the universal graph obeys.

Key to his suggestion is that a suitably complicated graph looks like a geometry. For instance, imagine a cube and a graph that resembles it.

 (Author provided)

Above: In the same way that a collection of points and lines can approximate a solid cube, Wolfram argues that space itself may be a mesh that knits together a series of nodes.

Wolfram argues that extremely complex graphs resemble surfaces and volumes: add enough nodes and connect them with enough lines and you form a kind of mesh. He maintains that space itself can be thought of as a mesh that knits together a series of nodes in this fashion.

What does this have to do with physics?

How can complicated meshes of nodes help with the project of reconciling general relativity and quantum mechanics? Well, quantum theory deals with discrete objects with discrete properties. General relativity, on the other hand, treats the universe as a continuum and gravity as a continuous force.

If we can build a theory that can do what general relativity does but that starts from discrete structures like graphs, then the prospects for reconciling general relativity and quantum mechanics start to look more promising.

If we can build a geometry that resembles the one given to us by general relativity using a discrete structure, then the prospects look even better.

Space may be a complex mesh of points connected by a simple rule that is iterated many times. (Wolfram Physics Project)

So is it time to get excited?

While Wolfram’s project is promising, it does contain more than a hint of hubris. Wolfram is going up against the Einsteins and Hawkings of the world, and he’s doing it without a life spent publishing in physics journals.

(He did publish several physics papers as a teenage prodigy, but that was 40 years ago, as well as a book A New Kind of Science, which is the spiritual predecessor of the Wolfram Physics Project.)

Moreover, his approach is not wholly original. It is similar to two existing approaches to quantum gravity: causal set theory and loop quantum gravity, neither of which get much of a mention in Wolfram’s grand designs.

Nonetheless, the project is notable for three reasons.

First, Wolfram has a broad audience and he will do a lot to popularise the approach that he advocates. Proponents of loop quantum gravity in particular lament the predominance of string theory within the physics community. Wolfram may help to underwrite a paradigm shift in physics.

Second, Wolfram provides a very careful overview of the project from the basic principles of graph theory up to general relativity. This will make it easier for individuals to get up to speed with the general approach and potentially make contributions of their own.

Third, the project is “open source”, inviting contributions from citizen scientists.

If nothing else, this gives us all something to do at the moment – in between baking sourdough and playing Animal Crossing, that is.

Sam Baron, Associate professor, Australian Catholic University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

#Physics