Ah yes, computer programming, the leader in biological sciences.
It was not on my bingo card today to witness someone attempt to ascribe legitimacy to intelligent design through application of computer programming concepts but here we are.
It’s an old creationist ploy. DNA is like a computer program, which implies there must have been a programmer, yadda yadda, just asking questions, wharblgarbl, brave scientists are speaking up and challenging the Darwinist regime.
A lot of things in programming are in fact evidence of natural selection rather than intelligent design.
This has to be a joke, right? Somebody demonstrate seriousness on OP’s part before I craft a sneer, please.
he would have been tweeting about how science can’t explain the mechanical turk
you just transported my brain to a world where the orange site somehow existed before computing and started making prediction market bets on the mechanical Turk revolutionizing Chess
“rip chess players”
“10 UX takeaways from the mechanical Turk impact on the chess world”
“stop playing chess and learn how to build mechanical Turks”
“what I learned from building a chessboard in a weekend”
“chess with matchsticks - I really liked orangeposter42069’s weekend chess experiment but wanted to see if I could go even more extreme, [53000 word vomit continues, 3 Medium popover walls + coursebuy griftware on the side]”
“chess with matchsticks may be interesting, but AXESHOEWALLY bars of soap would be more period-appropriate”
Spoken like someone who doesn’t know shit about functional genomics
my psychic powers tell me he doesn’t know shit about programming either
This makes total sense to me. The program lines are the really important stuff, and baseball stats and vestigial organs are like REM in BASIC.
10 Don’t forget to breathe
20 My name is Pico Paco, e/Lambda
30 Never more than 2 martinis unless I’m at home
REM What my appendix does is …
40 Heartbeat = ml/beat x VO2 exerted or whatever
REM Rod Carew batted .388 in 1977
50 Use right hand first if possible
Ah yes, the same reason a caterpillar and a bison can produce offspring.
It’s not magic, it’s just like writing code for a business that has been pushing to production for millions of years, with millions of little scripts always running, fixing little things, fixing the things that fix the things, making sure you don’t have a tail, unless for some reason that works out, then sure, you should always have a tail.
Calling your own mewling drivel “Programmer Theory” is an A+ dipshit move.
But still there are bugs in production 😆
The code was written for a specific environment and now we are running it in a totally different environment, so what do you expect…
Besides, the goal of the code is basically to keep the swarm alive, it doesn’t really do anything about the health of individual nodes
this post gives me the same impression as what @bitofhope@awful.systems mentioned about netcode the other day: some just straight-up :bigthonk: applied with a handful of bits of actual clue, and threading the needle between platformer jump-pads A through Z hoping you get there with a safe landing all the way
I was going to say I didn’t even check on this person’s profile (simply the
e/lambdaseemed sketchy), but then I did and ugh I have made mistakesFound here:
This is the secret. George opened the debate by acknowledging Yud’s intellectual gigantism, comparing him to Sartre and Neechay (have not heard of this one before). “I’m sitting in front of an intellectual giant now” Game recognize game.
And here, bringing the Alabama-school-board energy:
Evolution is observable, we know species change. Evolution by natural selection is marginally observable. We can run experiments in test tubes with bacteria or whatever. Yet we confidently extrapolate these extremely limited observations to the vastly bigger phenomenon 🤔🤔
ah, Programmer Theory is just the dumbest shit I hear when engineering meetings lose focus, got it
also, words mean things, Pico Paco e/λ! science absolutely does fucking explain genetic recombination, CS knows how merge functions work, and we even know from cross-discipline information theory that these two things look mathematically nothing like each other!
also, and I almost missed it because this stupid asshole tried to squeeze it in right before an etc: where the fuck is DNA “execution” doing anything resembling a unit test?
fuck me, the more I look back at Pico Paco e/λ‘s posts the more bullshit I spot.
git merge(and all other methods of merging code under source control) relies on manual intervention in cases where merge algorithms break (which is incredibly common) and might still produce a non-functional result — it’d be awful at automatically merging DNA strings together! like fuck, the diffs thatgit mergehandles are even line-based, which isn’t a concept that DNA strings have“another copy that works perfectly with some fidelity” what does this even mean, Pico Paco e/λ, if that is your real name?
and here I was gonna ask Pico Paco e/λ who he thinks is reading the comments in junk DNA, but these posts are fractally wrong
You’re forgetting that on the internet if someone doesn’t know something, then it must be unknowable. “It’s basically magic” boils down to “I personally don’t know how this works”.
