Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: Stevef is snuffalopagus???

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 209059 times) previous topic - next topic

BenTheBiased, entropy, DaveGodfrey, VoxRat, borealis, JonF (+ 1 Hidden) and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35375

Do you think the software that you write is as sophisticated as the software employed in the biological world? I happen to think that it's nowhere close. And Bill Gates is actually on record agreeing with me. Which begs the question... What makes you feel qualified to judge the quality of biological software?
The fact that there are certain universal principles in programming. From the first student project to the largest libraries. Not always followed, but always applicable.

And biological software doesn't follow them at all.
how do you know that biological software doesn't simply follow a completely different set of rules?

It does. That's the fucking point.  jeez.

For a start, it isn't really software at all.
That's Dave. Taking obtuseness to stratispheric levels.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35376
Do you think the software that you write is as sophisticated as the software employed in the biological world? I happen to think that it's nowhere close. And Bill Gates is actually on record agreeing with me. Which begs the question... What makes you feel qualified to judge the quality of biological software?
The fact that there are certain universal principles in programming. From the first student project to the largest libraries. Not always followed, but always applicable.

And biological software doesn't follow them at all.
how do you know that biological software doesn't simply follow a completely different set of rules?

It does. That's the fucking point.  jeez.

For a start, it isn't really software at all.
No.

It was Saunt  Tonga that started this part of the conversation and he was evaluating biological software by human software rules.

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35377
To make the point that biology looks nothing like programming.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35378
Do you think the software that you write is as sophisticated as the software employed in the biological world? I happen to think that it's nowhere close. And Bill Gates is actually on record agreeing with me. Which begs the question... What makes you feel qualified to judge the quality of biological software?
I'm not talking about the function and what is aparent on the outside. I'm talking about internal structure, the way it is put together, the design or lack of it.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35379
Do you think the software that you write is as sophisticated as the software employed in the biological world? I happen to think that it's nowhere close. And Bill Gates is actually on record agreeing with me. Which begs the question... What makes you feel qualified to judge the quality of biological software?
The fact that there are certain universal principles in programming. From the first student project to the largest libraries. Not always followed, but always applicable.

And biological software doesn't follow them at all.
how do you know that biological software doesn't simply follow a completely different set of rules?
Indeed. The rules are "whatever works". The same rules that produce software when the intelligence, budget or time to do design is missing.
Is the all-powerfull eternal creator of the universe stupid, poor, or in a hurry?

  • uncool
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35380
Do you think the software that you write is as sophisticated as the software employed in the biological world? I happen to think that it's nowhere close. And Bill Gates is actually on record agreeing with me. Which begs the question... What makes you feel qualified to judge the quality of biological software?
The fact that there are certain universal principles in programming. From the first student project to the largest libraries. Not always followed, but always applicable.

And biological software doesn't follow them at all.
how do you know that biological software doesn't simply follow a completely different set of rules?
I didn't say rules. I said principles. The difference should be instructive.

  • uncool
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35381
Do you think the software that you write is as sophisticated as the software employed in the biological world? I happen to think that it's nowhere close. And Bill Gates is actually on record agreeing with me. Which begs the question... What makes you feel qualified to judge the quality of biological software?
I'm not talking about the function and what is aparent on the outside. I'm talking about internal structure, the way it is put together, the design or lack of it.
Eh, to some extent, the fact that we can detect a structure makes it external.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35382
Do you think the software that you write is as sophisticated as the software employed in the biological world? I happen to think that it's nowhere close. And Bill Gates is actually on record agreeing with me. Which begs the question... What makes you feel qualified to judge the quality of biological software?
I'm not talking about the function and what is aparent on the outside. I'm talking about internal structure, the way it is put together, the design or lack of it.
I'm thinking of things like the laryngeal nerve in giraffes, whale pelvises, marsupial birth and development of kidneys in mammals. These things have familiar patterns commonly found in badly designed sofware.
  • Last Edit: February 23, 2018, 01:00:02 PM by Saunt Taunga

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35383
Do you think the software that you write is as sophisticated as the software employed in the biological world? I happen to think that it's nowhere close. And Bill Gates is actually on record agreeing with me. Which begs the question... What makes you feel qualified to judge the quality of biological software?
The fact that there are certain universal principles in programming. From the first student project to the largest libraries. Not always followed, but always applicable.

And biological software doesn't follow them at all.
how do you know that biological software doesn't simply follow a completely different set of rules?

It does. That's the fucking point.  jeez.

For a start, it isn't really software at all.
No.

It was Saunt  Tonga that started this part of the conversation and he was evaluating biological software by human software rules.
No. I was talking about design and no design, and the sort of things they produce.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35384
To make the point that biology looks nothing like programming.
It sort of looks like some programming. The lazy stupid kind. Where "it mostly works" is all that counts.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35385
Biology looks like what happens when things make imperfect copies of themselves. Which it should because that's what it is.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35386
Do you think the software that you write is as sophisticated as the software employed in the biological world? I happen to think that it's nowhere close. And Bill Gates is actually on record agreeing with me. Which begs the question... What makes you feel qualified to judge the quality of biological software?
The fact that there are certain universal principles in programming. From the first student project to the largest libraries. Not always followed, but always applicable.

And biological software doesn't follow them at all.
how do you know that biological software doesn't simply follow a completely different set of rules?

It does. That's the fucking point.  jeez.

For a start, it isn't really software at all.

It's just a very very complex chemical reaction.
A walk through the ocean of most mens souls would scarcely get your feet wet.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35387
I can safely say as the father of two expert bowhunting sons... That this is a poorly designed bow and arrow ... they would not be kill anything with this. WTF was the designer thinking!?



I cannot get this dang image to show
  • Last Edit: February 23, 2018, 01:38:36 PM by Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35388
 :???:
A walk through the ocean of most mens souls would scarcely get your feet wet.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35389
Do you think the software that you write is as sophisticated as the software employed in the biological world? I happen to think that it's nowhere close. And Bill Gates is actually on record agreeing with me. Which begs the question... What makes you feel qualified to judge the quality of biological software?
The fact that there are certain universal principles in programming. From the first student project to the largest libraries. Not always followed, but always applicable.

And biological software doesn't follow them at all.
how do you know that biological software doesn't simply follow a completely different set of rules?

It does. That's the fucking point.  jeez.

For a start, it isn't really software at all.
No.

It was Saunt  Tonga that started this part of the conversation and he was evaluating biological software by human software rules.
No. I was talking about design and no design, and the sort of things they produce.
Like there are recurring patterns in good software design, there are recurring patterns in bad design. These bad design patterns are called Anti Patterns and are found in real-life, working, useful and often valuable software. Some that are found frequently in biological systems are Lava Flow, Spaghetti Code and Cut and Paste Programming.
  • Last Edit: February 23, 2018, 01:22:02 PM by Saunt Taunga

  • fredbear
  • Militantly Confused
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35390
:???:
I have a feeling Dave isn't quite all 'there' today.

Maybe this is what happens when he starts to lose his grip on his convictions.

Don't worry, Dave. Your demon will be firmly back in control by tomorrow.
"...without considering any evidence at all - that my views are more likely - on average - to be correct.  Because the mainstream is almost always wrong" - Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35391

  • fredbear
  • Militantly Confused
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35392
"...without considering any evidence at all - that my views are more likely - on average - to be correct.  Because the mainstream is almost always wrong" - Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35393
Do you think the software that you write is as sophisticated as the software employed in the biological world? I happen to think that it's nowhere close. And Bill Gates is actually on record agreeing with me. Which begs the question... What makes you feel qualified to judge the quality of biological software?
The fact that there are certain universal principles in programming. From the first student project to the largest libraries. Not always followed, but always applicable.

And biological software doesn't follow them at all.
how do you know that biological software doesn't simply follow a completely different set of rules?

It does. That's the fucking point.  jeez.

For a start, it isn't really software at all.

It's just a very very complex chemical reaction.
So is programming. Methyltheobromine is involved.

  • fredbear
  • Militantly Confused
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35394
I can safely say as the father of two expert bowhunting sons... That this is a poorly designed bow and arrow ... they would not be kill anything with this. WTF was the designer thinking!?



I cannot get this dang image to show
What was the point of that, by the way?
"...without considering any evidence at all - that my views are more likely - on average - to be correct.  Because the mainstream is almost always wrong" - Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35395
Do you think the software that you write is as sophisticated as the software employed in the biological world? I happen to think that it's nowhere close. And Bill Gates is actually on record agreeing with me. Which begs the question... What makes you feel qualified to judge the quality of biological software?
The fact that there are certain universal principles in programming. From the first student project to the largest libraries. Not always followed, but always applicable.

And biological software doesn't follow them at all.
how do you know that biological software doesn't simply follow a completely different set of rules?

It does. That's the fucking point.  jeez.

For a start, it isn't really software at all.

It's just a very very complex chemical reaction.
So is programming. Methyltheobromine is involved.
In fact, no amount of real programming happens without it.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35396
Do you think the software that you write is as sophisticated as the software employed in the biological world? I happen to think that it's nowhere close. And Bill Gates is actually on record agreeing with me. Which begs the question... What makes you feel qualified to judge the quality of biological software?
The fact that there are certain universal principles in programming. From the first student project to the largest libraries. Not always followed, but always applicable.

And biological software doesn't follow them at all.
how do you know that biological software doesn't simply follow a completely different set of rules?

It does. That's the fucking point.  jeez.

For a start, it isn't really software at all.

It's just a very very complex chemical reaction.
So is programming. Methyltheobromine is involved.
In fact, no amount of real programming happens without it.
But that is not worth arguing about.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35397
I can safely say as the father of two expert bowhunting sons... That this is a poorly designed bow and arrow ... they would not be kill anything with this. WTF was the designer thinking!?



I cannot get this dang image to show
There we go ... it was an issue with my phone.

Anyway, do you see my point?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35398
LOL at so many things in the last few posts.

  • Martin.au
  • Thingyologist
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35399
Seems like a nice example of the difference between designed things, where ideas are introduced from outside sources, such as a mashup of bow with pneumatic nerf gun, and evolution, which would not produce something like this.
It's a plastic crocoduck.

I don't think that was what you were trying to convey though.
"That which can be asserted with evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." (Dave Hawkins)