Me I wonder how many people realise that that which they hold dearest is the filthiest shit of themselves.
Her It's not exactly that which they hold dearest. They don't really understand it, which is why they pretty much always have a weird tag on it like 'zen', which for you instantly connotes that it's this stupid thing. But it's not necessarily the case they hold it dearest. It's mysterious, and they may well have a lot of hope for it, but you can't hold dear that which you don't get.
Me Nono. When a person is asked to think about "what is the one thing they most feel close to their heart, they most identify with", the result of self-exploration as to their "true self" ? That's the shittiest part of them.
Her I say you're wrong. Most people when asked to think about etc etc, will say something about love. It wont' actually be about them. It won't be about their zen or their creativity or whatever.
Me Say is one thing.
Her Oh I think they mean it. What you see on the internets and in general isnt the result of people actually answering that question. It's people doing something else entirely.
Me I can judge by what people do.
Her Yes but why on Earth would people be "doing" answers to soul searching questions honestly on fuckin' facebook or whatever.
Me It's the nature of the beast.
Her It's facebook, they're going to build little construct sandcastles to play socialtime with their friends.
Me Mnope. The "soul" is there all the time, see ? When they're doing something grand, there's a lot of the momentum of the moment carrying them. You can't see if it's their "soul" or the breath of the revolution making them fucking icons of Nike. But when they're doing something small... then you can see.
Her No, they earnestly are answering this question? When they're doing something small yes you can see, but what you see is something small. How can you suppose you have everything needed to extrapolate this into an entire person? I mean sure we can insist that each action no matter the magnitude must be carried out with representative thought and grace and character. That seems a bit too unforgiving for sanity.
Me Thats not what we're saying. What we're saying is that the substance of the actor shows itself in the most minute action at all.
Her Yes but are we able to perceive this substance? If we're in love I suppose it works, but if not?
Me Like for instance, take a horse.
Her I have taken a horse.
Me This horse, he's not like other horses. He once tried to jump over a creek you see, like a playful thing, but landed badly. Didn't break its leg, but it kind of hurts ever since. This may not show on parade, or when running furiously. But when it leisurely eats a grass one day... you'll see his foot is ;/
Her Ah but see, this is recognizably true and moving for the very reason that it is essential to the horse now, and involuntarily shown; a part of him. The humans aren't doing this. They're constructing shit.
Me Hahahaha! Of course they are. Why wouldn't they ? How wouldn't they ? That's what was said : that which is closest held, the part of one that one thinks most fundamental, deeply him - that's the worst shit he is.
Her Because they don't want to be a naked horse of the Earth eating grass and doing things their body tells them to do. They want to live in their neighbor's house and be a certain self-representation and all sorts of irrelevant shit. They make stuff up. The horse isn't making anything up.
Me Yes, they make shit up, but not out of a rng which they have in their compartment. They make stuff "up" out of the stuff they are.
Her That is such nonsense.
Me There is nothing novel in the world. Of that which there isn't any in the world, even less is in any one person.
Her There is so much, so f r e a k i n g much of that "stuff" out there!
Me Ahahaha again we come to the hashes. Ok, sit down and listen.
Her I am sat.
Me Ah, good. Zo... what is a set ?
Her A set is any collection of items that meet the criteria defined by the rules of the given set.
Me Kinda circular.
Me "A set is a collection of definite items."
Her A set is a collection of definite items.
Me Definite is the requirement. They don't have to meet any rule other than be specified, identifiable, somehow known for sure. Ok, what is a function ?
Her That I don't know.
Me A function is a relation between two sets, so that elements of one correspond to elements in the other.
Me What's an injective function ?
Her I don't know.
Me That is a function which offers the guarantee that all elements in the first set will have been related to the 2nd.
Her Um. Why doesn't the fact that it is a function guarantee this on its own? If elements of one correspond to elements in the other...
Me Like, you walk into a zapatoria.
Me The pricing function is injective : while it guarantees you any shoe will have a price, it does not guarantee that any price has a shoe.
Her Oh I see. Ok.
Me Now, what's a surjective function ?
Her I'd guess the opposite, that it is a function which offers the guarantee that all elements in the second set will have been related to the first.
Me Yup. Now, a bijective function is a function that's both injective and surjective. What's a hash ?
Her A hash is an injective function.
Me It's a fixed length injective function. It makes two specific guarantees : that all members of the 1st set will yield a result, and that the result will be exactly of a given length.
Me Now, in cases where the function works on a set with values on the same set, such as for instance bunches of numeric functions, the direct application is that you can hash the hash.
Her I don't understand what this means "the function works on a set with values on the same set".
Me Like earlier, we had the pricing function, (shoes) -> (prices). We could have the "multiplication by three" function, (numbers) -> (numbers). It works on the same set.
Me Now bring up a terminal and go md5sum <<<"hello i enjoy c0k"
Her 446764e546da3e230ee662631475deef -
Me Now use that in the quotes.
Her bc60d24060926d228f4ea5b6af77419a -
Me And again.
Her 3047b0a8565f23d814e5f034d31494d0 -
Me Now start over with the original string.
Her 446764e546da3e230ee662631475deef -
Me So obviously a) you could repeat this process endlessly, obtaining an arbitrary number of very complicated strings and b) every time you re-do it you get the exact same strings.
Me So now, we're ripe to consider the original point.
There is so much, so f r e a k i n g much of that "stuff" out there.
Her What, you're saying I'm just seeing hashes?
Me Not even good ones, mind. It's doable but not easy to discover 446764e546da3e230ee662631475dee really comes from "hello i enjoy c0k". It's often trivial to go through the entire chain with people.
Her But this isn't exactly math, we're fallible here and wouldn't necessarily know we'd make an error. Are you very confident in your ability?
Me Or wouldn't we.
Her Well no, if you're suggesting we'd know please explain how. I mean, I personally can defer the judgment to you, hard as it's been when it's been my hashes under scrutiny, but...
Me Let's see. The guy with the "bitbet stole 7k!!1" was really being funny. Right ?
Her No, he wasn't being funny. You thought it was funny.
Me Well but are you very confident in your ability ? (He momentarily claimed he was being funny under the psychological pressure of the assets chan, that added to the lulz.)
Her I'm confident in my ability to affirm that snackman was not "really being funny". (I remember that, but I don't think it was either the case or that he actually intended it to be so, but rather threw that out there as a last ditch effort, as you say under psychological pressure.)
Me So then bully for you. How come you're confident ?
Her What do you mean bully for me?
Me I mean well of course you can.
Her Mk. This is pretty basic though.
Me As opposed to what.
Her What you're proposing seems about 10x at least more complex.
Me Something is 10x more complex than detecting humour !? I thought that is the most complex task in all of AI.
Her But we're talking about human beings, not AI. And I'd say the notion that you can "go through the entire chain with people" is at least 10x more complex than detecting humor in the given instance, yes.
Me Well, you got any way to model this theory ?
Her I'll try.
Me Note that what I said was "it's often trivial". This is by no means a bijective function.
Her I don't know what to think, really. In my experience people are a little more complicated than straight correspondings between some nonsense they spouted and one of the few available artifacts of the human condition. Or at least, it'd take more than a single jump to get there. Maybe I'm just assuming it and I haven't really ever thought it out.
Me In your defense, you've spent a lot less time on this problem.
Her That's probably a good guess, because how would I have.