Sunday, November 1, 2020

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 18 updates in 5 topics

Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Nov 01 08:25PM

Just made my new C++ logging framework a service:
 
service<debug::logger>() << "foo" << endl;
 
A service is superior to a standard singleton as you can share the service between the app and any plugins the app loads.
 
/Flibble
 
--
¬
Leo <usenet@gkbrk.com>: Nov 01 11:37PM +0300

On 11/1/20 11:25 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
 
> A service is superior to a standard singleton as you can share the
> service between the app and any plugins the app loads.
 
> /Flibble
 
Is that resolved on compile-time and optimized/inlined or is there a
runtime cost for this?
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Nov 01 08:59PM

On 01/11/2020 20:37, Leo wrote:
 
>> A service is superior to a standard singleton as you can share the service between the app and any plugins the app loads.
 
>> /Flibble
 
> Is that resolved on compile-time and optimized/inlined or is there a runtime cost for this?
 
https://github.com/i42output/neolib/blob/master/include/neolib/app/services.hpp
 
/Flibble
 
--
¬
Brian Wood <woodbrian77@gmail.com>: Nov 01 02:55PM -0800

On Sunday, November 1, 2020 at 2:26:00 PM UTC-6, Mr Flibble wrote:
> Just made my new C++ logging framework a service:
 
> service<debug::logger>() << "foo" << endl;
 
> A service is superior to a standard singleton as you can share the service between the app and any plugins the app loads.
 
As you know I'm a proponent of property rights and
services are part of that story. Any one who has ever
had a car/house etc. may also be for property rights.
 
 
Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises
https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Nov 01 10:57PM

On 01/11/2020 22:55, Brian Wood wrote:
 
> Brian
> Ebenezer Enterprises
> https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards
 
What the fuck are you talking about? Fuck off you mentalist.
 
/Flibble
 
--
¬
Brian Wood <woodbrian77@gmail.com>: Nov 01 01:53PM -0800

On Friday, October 30, 2020 at 1:24:04 AM UTC-5, Bonita Montero wrote:
> > Probably there are others who haven't joined the list, but
> > that are likewise convinced.
> Programmers should be able to read both without any aversions.
 
But hopefully not write both.
 
 
Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - "America isn't great because America is
powerful. America is powerful because America is great."
Ben Shapiro @ Dailywire.com
"Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: Nov 01 02:48AM +0100


> No, that wasn't what Penrose was trying to do. Penrose was attempting to
> refute the idea of "strong AI" that a computer program could exhibit consciousness.
> That was a big topic in the 1990's.
 
A meaningless distinction. I am very happy that funding for philosophy
departments started being reduced at that time. They're like leeches on
academia and the less money wasted on them, the better.
 
 
> book that consciousness was actually explained.
 
> In any case, I'm pretty convinced that none of the programs that I
> write will ever exhibit consciousness.
 
True.
 
It's a very good point about philosophers, that they are so stupid that
they still take serious the idea of /writing a program/ that could be
intelligent. It's an utter idiot's idea. Or maybe an infant's idea.
 
 
>>> anything about it.
 
> The idea of consciousness and what it would mean for a computer
> program to exhibit consciousness is hard to define.
 
You'll know it when you see it.
 
Alan Turing did a good first attempt of trying to pin it down with his
Turing test (in the same paper he included derogatory remarks about
Muslims, colored people, and his belief in ESP like telepathy, so that
classic paper would not have been accepted today): he pointed out the
main criterion, that if someone appears intelligent over an extended
period of interaction with you, than that someone is intelligent, that's
what we /mean/ by saying that someone is intelligent.
 
By this criterion modern philosophers do not exhibit intelligence. Or
for that matter, our classic philosophers were not intelligent. Consider
René Descartes "I think therefore I am" (he came up with that in the
process of trying to figure out how many angels could fit on a pin-head,
concluding that angels, being pure intelligence, had no physical extent)
who three times proved the existence of the Christian deity and failed
to consider that his proofs just as well proved the existence of the
Norse god Odin (much like Penrose amazingly failed to consider that his
proofs of non-intelligence applied to himself and not just robots), and
who argued strongly against the possibility of vacuum...
 
Or for that matter, consider Blaise Pascal, Descarte's contemporary.
These two quarreled about the existence of vacuum, with Pascal adopting
the more rational stance that as you go up in the air you get closer and
closer to vacuum. But while rational about that, Pascal was in general a
religious nutcase, known for his "Pascal's wager" where he calculated,
erroneously and irrationally, that the best bet was to believe in the
Christian deity (again, not considering that it also applied to Odin).
 
Or, talking about vacuum, such as inside philosopher's heads, consider
Aristotle, the idiot who thought that an arrow could not move in a
vacuum. Because in vacuum air would not be displaced by the arrow tip to
move back behind the arrow and push it. What an utter idiot.
 
And so on.
 
 
> realized in a machine. Dennett can be read as denying the existence of
> consciousness, but the problem is, even though we don't know
> what it is, we can all experience it.
 
Am happy that I've not wasted time on reading Dennet. :)
 
 
Cheers,
 
- Alf
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Oct 31 09:33PM -0500

On 10/31/2020 8:48 PM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> main criterion, that if someone appears intelligent over an extended
> period of interaction with you, than that someone is intelligent, that's
> what we /mean/ by saying that someone is intelligent.
 
This can be improved upon by saying that a machine <is> intelligent to
the same degree that it can achieve the same functional results as a
human with intelligence.
 
 
--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
 
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
"daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Oct 31 08:05PM -0700

On Saturday, October 31, 2020 at 9:48:35 PM UTC-4, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
 
> A meaningless distinction. I am very happy that funding for philosophy
> departments started being reduced at that time. They're like leeches on
> academia and the less money wasted on them, the better.
 
It's not only philosophers, but physicists and neuroscientists who are
interested in the problem of consciousness. They do not know what
consciousness is. It doesn't fit into the physicists' current understanding
of reality. Something is missing.
 
 
> It's a very good point about philosophers, that they are so stupid that
> they still take serious the idea of /writing a program/ that could be
> intelligent. It's an utter idiot's idea. Or maybe an infant's idea.
 
If consciousness is nothing more than neural processes, which was
proposed in the 1950's, I don't think it would be unreasonable to
conjecture that a computer program of sufficient complexity might
exhibit consciousness. But the problem is that there is nothing in
the behaviour of neurons that make them different with
regard to consciousness than any other cells in the body. Neuroscientists
have found correlates of conscious experience. You experience a Miles
Davis compilation, a neuroscientist can tell you which parts of your
brain are active. But correlates are not the same thing as conscious
experience itself.
 
 
> > The idea of consciousness and what it would mean for a computer
> > program to exhibit consciousness is hard to define.
 
> You'll know it when you see it.
 
Right. But if we didn't already know we were self aware and could
experience the world, there is nothing in contemporary physics or
neurophysiology that would allow us to deduce it.

Daniel
"Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: Nov 01 04:35AM +0100

> proposed in the 1950's, I don't think it would be unreasonable to
> conjecture that a computer program of sufficient complexity might
> exhibit consciousness.
 
You don't need a complex program; a complex program is the associative
non-thinking philosophers' idiot ideas intruding again.
 
You can in principle make do with a simplest possible, quite crude
simulation of neurons, or of atoms.
 
However, the /data set/ that the simple program operates on, is
gargantuan. Distribute the processing power of a PC over 100 billion
neuron simulations and you get a rough idea of the sloooooowness of this
approach with current technology: no intelligence when the sim takes a
year to do a msec thinking. But we'll be there in about two decades.
 
As you may or may not be aware, both the EU and the USA attempted to
create such simulations some years back, in billion-dollar projects.
 
I've not kept up to date. The last I heard they were beaten by a
Japanese simulation of a tenth of a second activity in half a rat brain.
It's an ethical mine field (well, it is that for rational people).
 
 
 
> Right. But if we didn't already know we were self aware and could
> experience the world, there is nothing in contemporary physics or
> neurophysiology that would allow us to deduce it.
 
Deducing chemistry from the laws of quantum mechanics is rather
difficult, even though we know that it can be done in principle: mother
Nature, with her practically infinite computational resources, does it
effortlessly all the time, but we, with current technology, just can't.
 
That's a corresponding problem, the same sort.
 
Namely, it's about crossing up through an /abstraction level boundary/.
 
 
Cheers,
 
- Alf
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Oct 31 10:41PM -0500

> Davis compilation, a neuroscientist can tell you which parts of your
> brain are active. But correlates are not the same thing as conscious
> experience itself.
 
Even if we could define consciousness in terms of a verifiable set of
abilities we would still be stuck with distinguishing the difference
between actual consciousness and a perfect simulation of it.
 
One way to define strong AI apart from consciousness is would be the
ability to do anything that a mind can do. If a computer program could
win a supreme court case this would be a very good measure.
 
 
--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
 
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
"daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Oct 31 09:08PM -0700

On Saturday, October 31, 2020 at 11:35:25 PM UTC-4, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> difficult, even though we know that it can be done in principle: mother
> Nature, with her practically infinite computational resources, does it
> effortlessly all the time, but we, with current technology, just can't.
 
Take our entire scientific edifice as it exists today - chemistry, physics,
evolution, general relativity, quantum mechanics, DNA, evolution, Higgs
Boson - and it still has no place for consciousness. There is nothing
there that explains why we experience things as opposed to simply
doing things. It's a problem. And from problems, follows inquiry. No
doubt our understanding of reality will need to advance again, as it
has several times past.
 
Daniel
"Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: Nov 01 06:03AM +0100


> Take our entire scientific edifice as it exists today - chemistry, physics,
> evolution, general relativity, quantum mechanics, DNA, evolution, Higgs
> Boson - and it still has no place for consciousness.
 
Well, the laws of quantum mechanics have nothing resembling chemistry.
 
If you didn't know that chemistry existed, you couldn't deduce it (with
current tech) from QM.
 
But you know that chemistry exists, and just like Niels Bohr did, with
that knowledge of existence and some properties you can deduce some
connections down to the more basic abstraction layer. I'm not sure I'm
attributing this right, but as I recall Bohr came up with the idea of
electron shells with a specific number of slots in each (2, 8, 8 ...),
which explained much of how atoms react to form molecules. It's a sort
of intermediate level, an abstraction bridge, not quite 100% anchored in
QM, nor quite 100% explanatory power for chemistry, but it helps.
 
Similarly, knowing that intelligence exists, and some properties of
intelligence (e.g., it disappears with brain death, it appears gradually
as one learns, etc.), you can relate it down to pure chemistry and
physics. You can establish some abstraction bridges, such as neural
nets, at a higher level the idea of semantic nets, etc. But as with
chemistry, with current tech you just can't /deduce/ or fully explain
intelligence in terms of a lower level of abstraction.
 
There are lots of clearly purely conventional physical phenomena (e.g.
general protein folding) that currently are similarly beyond our ken, so
there's absolutely no need to get mystical about it.
 
 
> doing things. It's a problem. And from problems, follows inquiry. No
> doubt our understanding of reality will need to advance again, as it
> has several times past.
 
There is /apparently/ nothing... You don't see chemistry in QM, and you
don't see intelligence in physics. Same thing. There's no need to
postulate any hidden aspects of reality to understand chemistry.
 
 
Cheers,
 
- Alf
"daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Nov 01 07:38AM -0800

On Sunday, November 1, 2020 at 1:03:28 AM UTC-4, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
 
> There are lots of clearly purely conventional physical phenomena (e.g.
> general protein folding) that currently are similarly beyond our ken, so
> there's absolutely no need to get mystical about it.
 
Right, to get mystical is to admit defeat. To talk about souls and spirits, or
a spiritual physical divide, is to admit defeat. We can be mystified by
things, but that doesn't mean we should seek mystical solutions.
 
I think it's fair to say that philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists
currently have a better understanding of what consciousness isn't
than what it is. There is the idea that "the hard problem of consciousness"
is really hard. And some of the conjectures made about what
consciousness is are pretty strange. Currently this is mostly
speculative, as cosmology was once entirely speculative, but with
cosmology, we now have evidence that supports some ideas but
not others. No doubt understanding will advance.
 
Daniel
Leo <usenet@gkbrk.com>: Nov 01 11:43PM +0300

On 10/29/20 8:00 AM, olcott wrote:
> computer science.
 
> I need my work vetted before I can present it at a higher level.
> As soon as this work is confirmed or refuted I will quit cross-posting.
 
How can someone be so clueless about CS concepts yet find out about
relatively obscure places like usenet? Does this happen just because you
get shadowbanned and ignored everywhere else?
"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Nov 01 04:55AM -0800

On Sunday, 1 November 2020 01:11:13 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> New lightweight C++ logging framework:
 
Looks nice. Perhaps worth documenting (as video is bad document).
 
Some things confuse me. For example why class logger is friend of
its base class i_logger? There are nothing private in
i_logger.
 
What I use in logging is possibility to set the lower bound
of logging level (you call it "severity") compile time ... so
for example if I set it to "info" level then "debug" and "trace"
level logging compiles to NOP. That can perhaps be done outside
of your framework.
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Nov 01 01:58PM

On 01/11/2020 12:55, Öö Tiib wrote:
> for example if I set it to "info" level then "debug" and "trace"
> level logging compiles to NOP. That can perhaps be done outside
> of your framework.
 
Hi,
 
The friendship is needed as i_logger::flush is protected and used by logger::flush:
 
for (auto& copy : copies())
copy->flush(aMessage);
 
/Flibble
 
--
¬
"The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca>: Nov 01 01:19PM

XanaNews Statistic for comp.lang.c++. 11/1/2020 6:19:19 AM
 
From article 418642 (10/1/2020 12:37:38 AM) to article 419203
(10/31/2020 10:03:08 PM)
 
Number of threads ................... 33
Number of articles .................. 566
Average articles per thread ......... 17.15
Number of unanswered posts .......... 9
Number of posts from XanaNews users .. 1
 
 
Top Threads
 
Ranking Articles Subject
------- -------- ----------------------------------
1 242 The key aspects of x86utm are now finally complete
(Refuting the HP proofs) [ definition of H ]
2 52 Architectural design of a halting problem solution
3 41 A non-halting decider is defined
4 37 "std::format in C++20" by Peter Gottschling
5 35 The x86utm operating system shows how the halting
problem can be made decidable
6 27 64-bit vs 32-bit app performance, heavy in 64-bit FP
7 14 Re: Ridiculously high standards?
8 14 std::getline( basic_istream<...> &&input,
basic_string<...> &str )
9 13 [OT] Why do gcc or clang don't have codes for
compilation errors/warnings?
10 13 Re: Question on padding and alignment of `struct`
and its members (olcott)
11 10 Hashing for unordered containers?
12 9 basic_ofstream(const basic_ofstream&) = delete
13 7 Re: T const
14 7 Re: Why should a "c" programmer learn c++ ? (V2)
15 7 Re: SOLUTION TO THE HALTING PROBLEM!
16 6 Fat Binary - MS-Windows and four Linux
17 5 Making the Halting Problem Decidable [ Includes
deciding the Peter Linz proof counter-example ]
18 4 C++ 20 modules
19 3 re-baseline
20 3 Re: High-tech, higher calling was: Onwards and
upwards
21 2 My first ever YT coding vlog! (Creating a C++
logging framework from scratch)
22 2 C++20 Designated initializers + struct member
initializer
23 2 olcott
24 2 Making a fat binary for Linux and Mac
 
 
Top Posters
 
Ranking Articles Name Most Used Newsreader
------- -------- -------------------------- --------------------
1 239 olcott Mozilla
2 32 Mr Flibble Mozilla
3 29 Mike Terry Mozilla
4 28 André G. Isaak Mozilla
5 17 David Brown Mozilla
6 16 Bonita Montero Mozilla
7 12 Juha Nieminen tin
8 12 Öö Tiib G2
9 12 Rick C. Hodgin Mozilla
10 11 Jorgen Grahn slrn
11 11 Brian Wood G2
12 10 daniel...@gmail.com G2
13 10 Mostowski Collapse Mozilla
14 9 Keith Thompson Gnus
15 9 Chris M. Thomasson Mozilla
16 7 ijw wij G2
17 6 Frederick Gotham G2
18 6 Richard Damon Mozilla
19 6 Alf P. Steinbach Mozilla
20 6 Chris Vine Sylpheed
21 6 Manfred Mozilla
22 5 Scott Lurndal xrn
23 4 Ralf Goertz Claws Mail
24 4 James Kuyper Mozilla
25 4 Bart Mozilla
26 4 Paavo Helde Mozilla
27 3 red floyd Mozilla
28 3 Melzzzzz slrn
29 3 Bo Persson Mozilla
30 3 Tim Rentsch Gnus
31 3 Thiago Adams G2
32 3 Stuart Redmann NewsTap
33 2 Elijah Stone Alpine
34 2 Ben Bacarisse
35 2 Pavel Mozilla
36 2 Fred. Zwarts Mozilla
37 2 Lew Pitcher Pan
38 2 Joe Pfeiffer Gnus
39 2 Cholo Lennon Mozilla
40 2 Ian Collins Mozilla
41 2 Lynn McGuire Mozilla
42 1 Nikolaj Lazic slrn
43 1 Nikki Locke Nikkis auto poster
44 1 The Doctor XanaNews
45 1 Leo Mozilla
46 1 Richard Harnden Mozilla
47 1 RM Mozilla
48 1 Tim Woodall slrn
49 1 Kenny McCormack trn
50 1 Jeff Barnett Mozilla
51 1 Paul Ratcatcher
 
 
Top Newsreaders
 
Ranking Articles Newsreader Users
------- -------- -------------------------------------------- -----
1 442 Mozilla 26
2 49 G2 6
3 16 slrn 4
4 14 Gnus 3
5 12 tin 1
6 6 Sylpheed 1
7 5 xrn 1
8 4 Claws Mail 1
9 3 NewsTap 1
10 2 Pan 1
11 2 Alpine 1
12 2 <unknown> 1
13 1 trn 1
14 1 XanaNews 1
15 1 Nikkis auto poster 1
16 1 Ratcatcher 1
 
 
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)