• future_synthetic@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • blakestacey@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • bitofhope@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        A lot of things in programming are in fact evidence of natural selection rather than intelligent design.

  • self@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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 that git merge handles 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

    • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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”.

  • carlitoscohones@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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

  • swlabr@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    This has to be a joke, right? Somebody demonstrate seriousness on OP’s part before I craft a sneer, please.

    • self@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

      • Steve@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        “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”

        • froztbyte@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          “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”

  • Czarrie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • froztbyte@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    this post gives me the same impression as what @[email protected] 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/lambda seemed sketchy), but then I did and ugh I have made mistakes

    • blakestacey@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Found 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 🤔🤔

    • dot20@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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