Hijacking your post with a dubious segue because I’m itching to bounce these thoughts off somebody:
I’ve been consuming a lot of talks / writing recently about “enactive” pictures of how our brains function. From what I gather, recent studies have called into question the entire idea of real world concepts being “represented” by an area of the brain at all. While it’s true that atandard fMRI-style snapshots of brain activity are semi-stable over the course of a short experiment, it’s not true over longer timeframes. The response to the same stimulus will change over time. They refer to this as “representational drift” in the literature, and some people are using this to bolster theories of mind that they consider non-representational. They instead emphasize the brain as a kind of dynamical system that learns to “resonate” with the world to pull itself back into homeostasis. The focus shifts away from facts and memories as data, and sees neuronal plasticity more as a mechanism for tuning the brain’s resonant frequencies. This obviously places high importance on the spiking, recurrent nature of actual neurons, as opposed to the neurons-as-functions / back-propagation / ML approach.
My mind’s not made up on how interesting and revolutionary this approach is / isn’t. The distinction seems to be about whether learning is more like “writing to disk” or “tuning a PID controller” - but in either case, the world is leaving a stateful imprint on your brain that will impact how it processes future data. Is that important to understanding how brains work, or is it just semantics?
Some years ago, I heard a retired Lutheran priest ponder, in radio, about the concept of a prayer, and whether, as an edge case, an unborn child could be able to pray, with the child of that age having no understanding on the required concepts. This is apparently one of those questions that people ponder under the umbrella of philosophy of religion. His conclusion was that prayer was about harmonizing one's self with the universe. It's a beautiful thought, (and I think religions, of all kinds, are really good at providing the fertile ground for thoughts like these).
It's akin to how the saying goes, that when we argue, we need to reach the same wavelength where the other one is to reach an understanding.
In communication studies or sociology or linguistics or one of those fields, there's the idea that communication is about making pacts about meanings, and finding the common ground to understand and delimit the message.
In a sense, from that basing, one could argue that understanding can be seen as an act of harmonizing. I think there's something universal in it.
For a lot of people, I think religion provides this basis or promise of harmony with the world, in a simplified way that stipulates what you should or shouldn't do and how things work, and those people find comfort in having these clear "rules"; we want to be able to rely on our understanding of the world, so that we can act within it with confidence, or faith. Ultimately, the "god" that is present in many religions is synonymous with this absolute truth of how the universe works, it's an unattainable standard that we all try to aim for, intuitively and knowledge-wise, or seek wisdom from, and I believe the intention of prayer is to have a way to get closer to it, to tune the self to the god in order to sense and know this absolute truth more clearly. I reckon that conceptually, prayer and meditation are very similar in this sense, but with a focus on different areas of the self.
If "god" is synonymous with the absolute truth of how the universe works then it can't address moral issues at all, since you can't prove an "ought" like "people shouldn't stab people" from an "is" like "stabbing hurts people and may kill them". You need to add extra axioms like "hurting people ought to be minimized".
The universe (and its intrinsic functions) holds no special value for people or trees or life in general. The best we can say is that it seems to have a slight preference for matter over antimatter for some reason.
All our moral codes and social norms we live by are purely human invention, derived from things that happen to work to produce a somewhat functioning society.
> All our moral codes and social norms we live by are purely human invention
I'd say much of it is selected for by evolution. e.g. Most animals don't fight or kill more than they need to since this is not optimal - risk of personal injury and depleting a food resource (there are exceptions of course such as the fox in the henhouse), and this is so universal it seems it has to have a genetic basis.
>All our moral codes and social norms we live by are purely human invention, derived from things that happen to work to produce a somewhat functioning society.
Religious people would disagree, and the evidences are all to see, hear and ponder from their sacred holy books. But the main questions are that which holy books are truly sacred, meaning that purely and utterly God words. Otherwise it's human innovation/exaggeration or something in between (i.e corrupted God words).
Based on these holy books, religious people adhere and follow their prophets teachings and actions to the best of their ability since the prophets are their fellow human beings and not angels send from the heavens.
Ooh thanks for the hijack! It’s so much easier to talk to someone who isn’t stuck in a picture of the brain from the 1980s.
Yes, I fall more towards the camp that a lot of our cognitive models, built from times when we didn’t have the resolution of understanding we have of the capacity of even a single neuron, and before we knew how astrocytes played a role, suffer from being an abstraction describing an abstraction. They are not tethered in the dynamics of the molecules and cells that give rise to the behavior, but rather from an interpretation of observed behavior.
This paper from the field of chronobiogy is one I’d recommend that helpfully contrasts this:
>In circadian research, the models are not proposals regarding the basic architecture of circadian mechanisms; rather, they are used to better understand the functioning of a mechanism whose parts, operations, and organization already have been independently determined. In particular, circadian modelers probe how the
mechanism’s organized parts and operations are orchestrated in real time to produce dynamic phenomena—what we have called dynamic mechanistic explanation.
And what you’re describing, the enactivist description of cognition, (and 4E cognition more broadly as a framework), is one way the neuroscience community is trying to move past these issues.
Few things that give me confidence these are the right track:
1. Circadian rhythms are evolutionarily ancient. Bacteria have em. Plants have em. But different molecular tools shape very different clocks, though the same 24 hour cycle is being tracked.
2. The way these rhythms are generated is not through some central system that broadcasts the information to other regions. Instead, it’s instantiated in every cell in the body, and the behavioral rhythm is due to the synchrony between cells. Resonance absolutely plays a role, and has been well documented. The brains role, via the suprachiasmatic nucleus or SCN, is to orchestrate this synchrony, but it is not the source of the rhythms.
3. This slow rhythm definitely regulates cognition (time of day effects in learning, memory formation, recall etc are well documented), but turns out, the molecular mechanisms by which the clock responds to light hugely overlap with the molecular mechanisms of learning in the synapse, and even more recent work has shown clock proteins are actually in the synapses and synaptic activity affects the clock.
All this points to nested oscillators with cross frequency coupling, and even better, because this is all grounded in actual molecular dynamics, there’s plenty of falsifiability. The phase amplitude links are best established for the faster rhythms, the famous “brain waves”. Highly recommend György Buzsáki‘s work on this:
What’s missing is going down into lower frequency rhythms, and testing how exactly they all couple. We have a lot of the pieces, but no single experimental paradigm that has looked at the full sweep over different times in the same organism. It’s not easy to do, but we’ll get there.
Clock disruption, depending on how you do it, has huge impacts on time perception, cognition, memory, aging AND consciousness. As that data and evidence gets more and more saturated, I hope we see more studies account for chronotype and the internal dynamical state of their test subjects when assessing outcomes.
Obviously I’m biased (also did chronobiology in school), but hopefully I’ve left you curious. Happy to answer more questions all this may have set off.
Thanks for your response, very intriguing! I have some controls background, and there’s something tantalizing about the idea that perhaps we need to be looking at the brain in frequency space, as it were. Are you aware of reservoir computing and do you see it playing a part in this?
Yes I’ve come across reservoir computing. As a neuroscientist, it made me sit up and take notice.
I’d say that I feel there’s homology in language. What reservoir computing says about the efficiency benefits of having a fixed but tunable dynamics to use as an underlying reservoir feels very adjacent to how I intuitively think of brain function.
The key thing from the circadian field you’ll appreciate:
The biological clock is a limit cycle oscillator. You have a bunch of chemical reactions that have negative feedback and some feedforward arms, and together they create a dynamical 24-regime. About 40-60% of the transcriptome of any given cell shows circadian dynamics.
Now this gives you phase, and an internal temporal reference for all your functions. In chronobiology, you call this the organisms subjective time. The system is chemically partitioned not just physically but over time, and behavior results from the dynamical interactions underneath which are concerned with anticipating solar and lunar periodicities in the environment, since those are so very common and determinative to fitness in many niches.
Note the fact that it is subjective time but has an objective description. However, external measurement without the background of the chronotype accounted for will thing of a lot of variance as “noise”.
My own philosophical conclusion has been that this is the source of our confusion with consciousness. We don’t account for the internal causal order of events, which are timed, and with cross frequency coupling and phase-amplitude linkages begging to be worked out with real world data.
>Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
This is the guideline that people find, by far, the hardest not to break. @dang or whoever - has anyone ever considered adding some kind of 'meta' discussion area to each topic? This would provide a place for people to commiserate / troubleshoot without diluting the main discussion? As we saw here, the discussions can sometimes be plenty productive (e.g. the author seeing and reacting to the criticism, paywall workarounds, etc.), it's just not what people interested in the actual subject want to read. And conversely, if it was moved into a special meta annex, people with a problem or a gripe would know right where to look.
The only reason I commented this was because the specific breakage was novel. And it’s rare for this specific type of comment to rank highly. Apparently this one is unusually interesting to others, or something? Beats me.
Sure, the specifics of this issue are intriguing on their own terms to the website nerds, but “there exists a problem with display of the website” surely rates as a tangential annoyance.
It’s unrealistic to imagine that we could ever fully moderate these meta comments away because there’s always going to be new problems and corresponding urges to discuss them. Nor do I think we really want to, when it comes down to it. They’re often useful, or at least cathartic.
…but. They DO make for dreadful reading if you actually came to read about the article itself. Thus my idea to add a wiki-style meta section. Then you get best of both worlds.
I think you deserve a rule bending or two every once in a while, as a fine HN citizen in good standing. They're not even linked prominently, so the fact that they even exist for a site that doesn't justify moderation actions feels a bit like Eternal September Keyfabe
I suspect you might hear a lot of push back on this take, but I for one fully agree. I would go as far as to say that in my workplace, this a nearly inverse relationship between quality of work and how actively that person is thinking about / talking about / acting-as-if-they-are-owed a promotion.
The people in my workplace that I respect the most and that are the most competent are the ones least interested in career politics and promotions. Heck they even often reject management responsibilities. They just want to do good work and management gets that and gets out of their way. In contrast, there is this guy constantly thinking what he could so to make an impression and talks about compensation and RSUs and cliffs and he is stuck where he already was 6 years ago and nobody would consider him for promotion ever.
…and whose digital calculator was _just_ a calculator (not a general purpose computer) that read values from a mechanical drum (so not fully electronic), and sat in a basement until it was later disassembled. That this device managed to qualify as prior art is mostly just an exhibit of how the trial system isn’t especially good at divining truth. So annoying that the ABC is a permanent barnacle on the ENIAC story.
The ABC's memory was not mechanical, even if the drum was driven directly by an electric motor. It was a self-refreshing series of capacitors using the same general mechanism as modern, non-persistent memory (self-regenerating I think?). It's was one of the other parts of the ABC that invalidated the Eniac patents, in addition to the ABC's binary adders. But the memory itself was entirely digital.
Sorry, I shortened to the point of inaccuracy - I should have said not fully electronic _speed_. Not meant to say that it was mechanically reading and writing values per se, just that the slow rotation of a mechanical drum was essential for its operation and ultimately had a limiting effect on the speeds it could compute. Thus the electronic storage and compute was rather defeated by inclusion of a mechanical element in the “critical path”, so to speak. I think that’s accurate to say?
Not any more accurate than it is to say the electronic storage and compute of any computer is defeated by the latency of its memory. Virtually all early memory devices were deeply limited.
Really the ABC was most limited by its use of a custom I/O device which used electrically burned holes in special paper to input the initial problem state and output the solution. Atanasoff never got it working reliably, which is the main reason the ABC was never fully functional before WWII.
In any case, the fixed nature of the ABC is often why its considered the first "digital electronic computer" and the ENIAC the first "general purpose digital electronic digital computer" (or later, the first "programmable digital electronic digital computer", after it was rebuilt in '46 - '47 to operate more like a modern computer).
Unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with Zuse's computers or the Colossus to say if those statements are really accurate.
And you can sell your tulip. But if the mania stopped and you suddenly _couldn’t_ find another person to sell it to, would you now be upset you paid $5000 for a tulip? What’s the value at which you wouldn’t be upset? Ok, that’s the intrinsic value of a tulip to you.
The thing about a profitable business that is different from a tulip is that it can at any point decide to issue a one-time or ongoing dividend. It can sell off parts to create cash. It has lots of optionality. Public companies have even more liquidity, which creates more optionality.
Even if you don't have immediate liquidity, it would obviously be worth something to have a slice of e.g. Rolex SA. That's obviously different than owning a tulip.
Dividends are also one way of income in retirement, much more predictably than selling stock. The yields are worse than bonds, but they can be considered to be mostly to rise with inflation, albeit on a year or two delay. Dividends also act as a discipline to keep management focused on the business, since you need to pay real money to shareholders, instead of just doing whatever good idea you have, regardless of whether it is a net benefit to the company.
I disagree with the last statement. The reason why most companies in the US have at least a nominal (one penny per share) dividend is that many pension funds have a requirement to only hold shares that issue dividends. Pension funds are all tax sheltered, so they don't need to worry about paying taxes on dividends. For retail investors, dividends are mostly worse that share buy backs. Why? Dividends are taxed, and the money needs to be reinvested.
> The only reason to do a dividend is because people like the feels of getting a cash payout.
Not really, when capital entities came up, the initial goal was to deliver return on invested capital,i.e. something "you get out of the business/back".
Or do you think back in 14th wenn Dutch East India Company was created, that you could by shares and sell them later to a higher bidder after the mission was accomplished? :-)
That’s the story, but it’s bullshit. The underlying intrinsic value of a stock can only be materialized if the company liquidates and you receive a share of the sell off of its assets. How many publicly traded companies abruptly decide they’re tired of the business, stop in their tracks, and liquidate their assets? This only really happens if the company is acquired or if it goes bankrupt. Acquisition is the closest the story comes to truth, but it’s also just forced sale to a greater shmuck. If a company goes bankrupt, a tiny fraction of the current stock price would be realized into cash for common investors because of all the privileged investors and lenders ahead of them, not to mention that the actual value of capital assets etc probably doesn’t cover all the losses (the company’s going bankrupt after all). The value of the underlying capital assets are essentially never returned to the common investors, and the idea that you own a portion of them is in practical terms a lie.
> The underlying intrinsic value of a stock can only be materialized if the company liquidates and you receive a share of the sell off of its assets.
This is wildly incorrect. A profitable company can decide to begin paying out dividends, which can eventually return > 100% of the investor's purchase price. A company can issue more stock or bonds to raise cash to pay investors. A company can spin off assets to raise cash to pay investors.
Your framing is very much like a short-term PE investor, and if you look to their playbooks you can see there are many ways for intrinsic value to be realized while leaving an operating business behind. There are any number of stories where PE investors make big profits and then turn around and resell the company for more than they paid.
>If a stock never intends to pay dividends, the value of the stock is simply the price the next shumck is willing to pay.
So, by construction, we're talking about the value of shares in a hypothetical company that admits it will _never_ pay dividends. And we're asking what value that stock has BESIDES selling it to another shmuck, so for the purposes of the exercise, it's clearest to just imagine we are not allowed to sell to someone else. Most people will tell you that the stock nevertheless still has value because you own a share of the company itself, which entitles you to a share of its liquidation value. However, the argument I've been making here and in other posts are that:
a. A company tends to be "greater than the sum of its parts". The techno-social arrangement of people and business flows is part of what allows the company to be profitable, so disassembling it, selling off the machinery and returning whatever cash assets it had to the investors is unlikely to cover the market cap (at least, as they are priced today in current climate)
b. Even looking at whatever value IS leftover, the circumstances that lead to you realizing that value are extremely fraught / carry other baggage. It usually doesn't lead to common investors getting value back out, and cannot realistically be a justification for the current valuation of most big non-dividend stocks. For instance, consider how valuable it was to own a share of the underlying capital assets of Bed Bath and Beyond when it declared bankruptcy. It was far worse than just point 'a' ("oh no, we sold all the inventory and real estate it still didn't cover the market cap"). No, if you were a common investor, you essentially got $0 because there were lenders and preferred investors ahead of you in line that consumed those assets and left you crumbs.
c. Acquisitions are the best chance of turning your "ownership of the company itself" into dollars... but this is also slightly cheating, because you're appealing to sale of the shares to another entity again. Now, in real life, if a single entity owned the entire company, it would probably be able to extract some of the business's cash flows (a power which common investors lacked). So it's not quite fair to call the acquiring entity "the next shmuck", since they may be able to realize actual $ value in a way that the common investor couldn't. But technically, if we're playing along with the thought exercise, the premise is that the company continually reinvests in itself and refuses to pay out to the owners. If somebody buys out the company, takes it private, and redirects the profits to their own coffers, the new owning entity is essentially getting dividends by another name.
Yes, the profits it pays out are the one thing that actually makes sense, but the premise of the grandparent post was to ask what a share is worth _without_ dividends. And the answer is that shares are intrinsically worth very little. Liquidation value (actual liquidation - bankruptcy or going out of business or an exchange closure) is rarely ever practically realized for common investors. Even if you’re trading on the discounted expectation of a larger liquidation pie, nearly 0% is still nearly 0%.
Voting rights are also not valuable by themselves - they are only useful to steer the company towards greater future payouts, which means you are appealing to some other entitlement to value.
If you zoom out, a company is a temporary arrangement of people and things that makes more money than it spends _over time_. They are not really designed to accumulate and store value in and of themselves. The machines the employees use to do the work is a small fraction of the overall utility of a living breathing business. The valuable part is the capacity of this techno-social organism to reliably and continuously make profit, which is far greater than the sum of its parts. So if the profit that’s being earned is never paid out to stakeholders, then there’s no point in being a stakeholder. If the profit is redirected to make the organism bigger, then you are trading now-dollars for future-dollars which must be appropriately discounted. If everyone expects a company to do this forever, then the correct price is what the expected liquidation share should be, and that number is basically zero.
Yet, stocks that do not pay dividends exist at high valuations. What that tells you is that modern day stock trading is tulips: the lion’s share of the value derives from a temporarily stable, shared, _correct_ perception that someone else will buy it back from you.
The reality is that general investors are the greater fools in this arrangement. The prevalence of preferred stock is a tell that there are owners and there are “owners”. What we should do is recognize this and admit that the big initial investors and employees themselves are the owners, because they are the group small enough to actually realize liquidation value (should it ever be necessary). The public investors have no realistic claim on that value, so their shares should be more clearly labeled as dividend rights, which would cause them to be priced as such.
By this logic all money is inherently worthless too, and every time you buy a sandwich at the local corner shop you're just passing off that worthless piece of paper to the next schmuck.
In reality, things have value because people believe they have value. That doesn't mean every company that doesn't pay dividends is a speculative tulip bubble.
Amen. It always baffled me that cross compiling was ever considered a special, weird, off-nominal thing. I’d love to understand the history of that better, because it seems like it should have been obvious from the start that building for the exact same computer you’re compiling from is a special case.
A few things come to mind, but I wasn't even alive then so what do I know XD.
On one hand, it seems rather strange, because back in the early days of C (and later C++) there were far more CPU architectures in play. Every big Unix hardware vendor had their own CPU architecture, whereas today we only have about six. (In my mind: x86, arm, mips, risc-v, ppc, and s390x)
But it might be that in the early days of C/C++, development involved connecting to large shared Unix environments where the machine you developed on what always the machine (or at least the same type of machine) the program would run on, and also that those vendors weren't exactly incentivized to make developing for competitor's architectures easy.
The tough truth is that there already is a cargo for C/C++: Conan2. I know, python, ick. I know, conanfile.py, ick. But despite its warts, Conan fundamentally CAN handle every part of the general problem. Nobody else can. Profiles to manage host vs. target configuration? Check. Sufficiently detailed modeling of ABI to allow pre-compiled binary caching, local and remote? Check, check, check. Offline vs. Online work modes? Check. Building any relevant project via any relevant build system, including Meson, without changes to the project itself? Check. Support for pulling build-side requirements? Check. Version ranges? Check. Lockfiles? Check. Closed-source, binary-only dependencies? Check.
Once you appreciate the vastness of the problem, you will see that having a vibrant ecosystem of different competing package managers sucks. This is a problem where ONE standard that can handle every situation is incalculably better than many different solutions which solve only slices of the problem. I don't care how terse craft's toml file is - if it can't cross compile, it's useless to me. So my project can never use your tool, which implies other projects will have the same problem, which implies you're not the one package manager / build system, which means you're part of the problem, not the solution. The Right Thing is to adopt one unilateral standard for all projects. If you're remotely interested in working on package managers, the best way to help the human race is to fix all of the outstanding things about Conan that prevent it from being the One Thing. It's the closest to being the One Thing, and yet there are still many hanging chads:
- its terribly written documentation
- its incomplete support for editable packages
- its only nascent support for "workspaces"
- its lack of NVIDIA recipes
If you really can't stand to work on Conan (I wouldn't blame you), another effort that could help is the common package specification format (CPS). Making that a thing would also be a huge improvement. In fact, if it succeeds, then you'd be free to compete with conan's "frontend" ergonomics without having to compete with the ecosystem.
The paper came out of work on ENIAC and was adapted to follow the approach in the paper but Baby was built from outset to use that approach and its design much more closely matches the architecture that has been used by almost all digital computers since. I don’t dispute that ENIAC is important but it’s role is more nuanced than this article implies.
The von Neumann report was written after von Neumann had several discussions with the ENIAC team about how to make a better computer as a successor for ENIAC.
The report was not published formally, but it was "leaked", so it does not have any credits for the ideas contained in it.
Because of this, with few exceptions it is impossible to determine with certainty which parts of the report are original ideas of von Neumann and which parts are ideas that von Neumann might have learned during the discussions with the ENIAC team.
An example of an idea that certainly did not come from the ENIAC team was the proposal to use an iconoscope CRT as the main memory (which was implemented first in the British Manchester computers, so such a memory became known as a Williams-Kilburn tube). The ENIAC team had a different idea of what to use as a memory, i.e. delay lines taken from radars. Von Neumann replaced this suggestion with a CRT, because he thought that a random-access memory is better.
The von Neumann report had an exceptional importance because it defined with perfect clarity what a digital computer should be, which should be its structure and then provided a detailed description of how such a computer should be designed, which was good enough to enable anyone who read the report to build such a computer. This effect really happened, and a great number of teams at universities, government agencies, independent research centers like IAS and various companies, both in USA and in other countries, have built electronic computers in the following decade, exploring various design options.
There is no doubt that the clarity of the report is due to von Neumann and whichever were the ideas of the ENIAC team about a future computer, they were much more jumbled.
Because the ENIAC team did not publish their ideas (and they did not intend to, because they already wanted to monetize what they had learned about computers, by founding a private company), it does not really matter what they thought. The world has learned how to make general-purpose electronic computers from the von Neumann report.
ENIAC was a programmable computing automaton, but it was not a digital computer in the modern sense of the word, i.e. a digital system with 4 levels of closed positive-feedback loops (the complexity of a digital system is determined by the number of levels of nested positive-feedback loops, combinational logic has 0 levels, a memory has 1 level, an automaton has 2 levels, a processor has 3 levels and a computer has 4 levels; these are minimum numbers, as a real device may have more levels than strictly necessary, to achieve various advantages).
The ENIAC team’s decision to spin off and incorporate was surely pushed along by how they got screwed multiple times by the academics - Goldstine and Von Neumann, plus the university itself. It’s easier to celebrate the free publishing of ideas if your name is at least going to be on the paper.
It seems like you’re not trying particularly hard to avoid the idea of “monetizing” the computer to sound pejorative. It was the creation of the computer _industry_ that transformed the world and established the import of computers, was it not? You were never getting there without monetization. What good is the spread of ideas if someone, somewhere doesn’t eventually start selling computers? This grates especially hard given that the academics were the ones who acted unscrupulously by lifting their ideas and publicizing them without permission or credit. (“Leaked” is a charitable way to say “deliberately disseminated without caution”).
I agree the stored program is important, but the stored program is of ENIAC vintage, even if it wasn’t implemented on it. And Eckert and Mauchly definitively came to this idea before the involvement of Von Neumann. The thing is, they had an obligation to finish the machine they had promised to build for the army before pursuing such a major redesign. So all they COULD do was informally collect their ideas for a 2.0. Von Neumann arrives, absorbs what they’re up to, synthesizes it (including ‘the big idea’ that ENIAC was missing), and the rest is history. That synthesis is published without their names, and that is why we talk about the Von Neumann architecture. Look, I’m sure it’s true that the crispness of that paper can be attributed to Von Neumann, but it’s a non-sequitur to assume that Eckert and Mauchly’s ideas were jumbled. They were at least organized enough to be building a working machine in the background, and if we’re going to argue that the important thing was promulgation of enough information for others to replicate, than the practicum is more important than mathematical tidiness.
In fact, if we’re talking about how the ideas spread, the paper is frankly overblown. The Moore school lectures were really what caused the Cambrian explosion of electronic computing. There, you can find Eckert and Mauchly utterly central to the elucidation of how to build a general purpose electronic computer. And hey look, there they are, deliberately sharing the ideas out to interested practitioners, in a more pragmatic and direct way than the paper.
What I’m building to here is that E&M starting a company was not evidence that they were just out to make a buck. On the contrary, what it shows is that they had _foresight_ about what the next interesting chapter was bound to be. With the Moore School Lecrures, the ‘publishing of the ideas’ stage was over - the next step was to begin building more machines that could do more computation for more users. And while there was plenty that happened afterward to refine the theoretical model, they were absolutely correct that that’s where the action was. In fact, I think that if you look at what many of these proposed fathers of computing did next, it’s an excellent litmus test of how central they actually were. Some of the sillier ones like Atanasoff just forget about their supposed invention and go on with life - that’s a tell that they weren’t that interested in general-purpose, high speed computing. Whereas E&M’s follow-on work was to advance the field even in the face of great setback. This also completely deconstructs the idea that they were just thinking about artillery, or just thinking about weather. They were thinking about _computing_, and their careers afterwards demonstrate this.
I was sad to see you guys shut down - I think you were on to something with deterministic faster-than-realtime replay. Not surprised it was hard to find paying customers, but for what it's worth, my engineering self thought that you guys were solving the right problem. As far as I can tell, it's still not solved, and the shocking truth is that everyone is just Living That Way.
The other thing that is important is how to provide a more query-like interface to tease out the data you actually want your node to react to, yet in a way that will be deterministic. You need to guide users away from introducing non-determinism, which can be tricky because innocent things like a message buffer with a max size can lead to such situations.
I have talked with one of the key people at Xronos (https://www.xronos.com/), who are trying to attack related problems. Still, even they aren't quite as pre-occupied with _replay_, which is crucial.
I think the sad truth is that the second evolution of all this frameworking simply hasn't come together convincingly enough, and in one place, for it to gather momentum. It turned out to be hard. And now that it has taken too long, it's my bet that ROS2 and all of its imitators will get lapped by holistic deep approaches. Not the stupid stuff happening with these fake humanoid robot companies mind you, but still - something holistic and deep. Something coming out of the predictive coding research e.g., or world models, etc. Training in simulated environments with generative systems is going to lead to behavior so much more sophisticated than gluing together all of our little services. Roboticists have their own version of the bitter lesson coming soon.
I was sad, too. If there was a way I thought to continue doing it, I would. But as it is I'm actually considering getting out of robotics at this point, I've had enough of everyone "Living That Way".
I’ve been consuming a lot of talks / writing recently about “enactive” pictures of how our brains function. From what I gather, recent studies have called into question the entire idea of real world concepts being “represented” by an area of the brain at all. While it’s true that atandard fMRI-style snapshots of brain activity are semi-stable over the course of a short experiment, it’s not true over longer timeframes. The response to the same stimulus will change over time. They refer to this as “representational drift” in the literature, and some people are using this to bolster theories of mind that they consider non-representational. They instead emphasize the brain as a kind of dynamical system that learns to “resonate” with the world to pull itself back into homeostasis. The focus shifts away from facts and memories as data, and sees neuronal plasticity more as a mechanism for tuning the brain’s resonant frequencies. This obviously places high importance on the spiking, recurrent nature of actual neurons, as opposed to the neurons-as-functions / back-propagation / ML approach.
My mind’s not made up on how interesting and revolutionary this approach is / isn’t. The distinction seems to be about whether learning is more like “writing to disk” or “tuning a PID controller” - but in either case, the world is leaving a stateful imprint on your brain that will impact how it processes future data. Is that important to understanding how brains work, or is it just semantics?