Hollywood dialog:
"We're making a new movie. It's called 'Snakes on a Plane' "
"Oh? What's it about?"
11,850 karma · joined June 1, 2021
"We're making a new movie. It's called 'Snakes on a Plane' "
"Oh? What's it about?"
Finally, one thing that I really, really wanted, and YMMV. There's no reason why you should care about it, but I did: drop caps (the first letter of a section is 3 or 4 lines tall). I just think it's cool. You could do it with a lot of machinations in Scrivener, but it's trivial with Vellum.
Vellum knows all the things about publishing conventions. What I prefer about it is, you pay money for it. That gives them a stable business model.
People aren't treated for covid; they're treated for complaining about their symptoms
They're not treated for anxiety; they're treated for complaining about anxiety.
They're not treated for migraine headaches; they're treated for complaining about headaches.
They're not treated for gout; they're treated for complaining about their big toe.
They did say that he had something there. AFAIK they didn't say that he spawned a whole field of research, though.
"Oh, it's just SO complex!" is the battle cry of the academic grifter:
we need MUCH more research! I'm writing my grant application right now.
And by the way, that wasn't a "shallow dismissal." I was carefully saying that this isn't a new idea.
> The existence of the hard problem is disputed. It has been accepted by some philosophers of mind such as Joseph Levine,[10] Colin McGinn,[11] and Ned Block[12] and cognitive neuroscientists such as Francisco Varela,[13] Giulio Tononi,[14][15] and Christof Koch.[14][15] On the other hand, its existence is denied by other philosophers of mind, such as Daniel Dennett,[16] Massimo Pigliucci,[17] Thomas Metzinger, Patricia Churchland,[18] and Keith Frankish,[19] and by cognitive neuroscientists such as Stanislas Dehaene,[20] Bernard Baars,[21] Anil Seth,[22] and Antonio Damasio.[23]
Generally if you solve the easy problem you have a better idea of what's left and whether it's worth effort. So let's just go with that for now.
I really believe that, when people ask if some organism is "intelligent" or "conscious" (answer is usually No), they're just asking how similar it is to a human. Intelligence or consciousness is not a Thing; it's just a set of behaviors that have proven adaptive to some species. Crows have somewhat more of those behaviors than we'd thought.
By way of example, many animals have much better smell than we do because that is adaptive for them, and it's not quite as much of an advantage for us.
As for what kind of "consciousness" they have -- they have what they need. We can't know what it's like to be a bat, because we're not bats. It's probably not like being a flying human with sonar, but we'll never know.
Also: thinking that a few paragraphs on Hacker News constitutes sufficient wisdom is another problem with "politics as a whole." It is not going to convince you no matter what I or anyone else says.
Do some research. That probably means reading some books, hate to warn you.
You are assuming that a multi-party, multi-candidate election is a desirable norm. But that needs to be proven by you, not assumed.
In a pre-RCV system, the parties would choose their candidates, however they do it, and then the general election would pit one candidate of each party against each other, plus whatever other parties qualify for the ballot. The public has not accepted that that must be eliminated. It did make things hard for third parties, but so it goes. Prove that that's a bad thing.
https://alaskapublic.org/2024/05/29/ranked-choice-voting-tha...
Gamesmanship: Alaska is a red state. Only RCV would result in a Dem being elected.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/alaska-ranked-choice-voting-mary...
(not on archive, sorry. Here's the relevant part)
Republicans have learned from what happened last time, when they remained split. Looking only at first-choice votes in the 2022 special election that Ms. Peltola won, she had 40.2%. The GOP’s contenders, Sarah Palin and Mr. Begich, had 31.3% and 28.5%, respectively. Under the RCV rules, Mr. Begich was eliminated, and his supporters were reshuffled to their subsequent preferences. Enough of them didn’t like Ms. Palin that the victory went to Ms. Peltola, with 51.5%.
Strangely, though, this result was sensitive to the order of elimination, meaning that the final No. 1 depended on who was the initial No. 3. If Ms. Palin had been dropped instead, a strong majority of her ballots would have gone to Mr. Begich, who would have beaten Ms. Peltola.
Not only that, he’d have won about 52.5%, a bigger victory than Ms. Peltola’s ranked-choice majority. Doesn’t that seem . . . odd? What if some Democrats ranked Ms. Palin first on their ballots to ensure that the most polarizing GOP opponent made the final round?
did you mean 400K? That IS in the 990.
are we talking about the same building? The one I'm talking about was a high-ceilinged single room:
https://www.dezeen.com/2017/06/14/frank-lloyd-wright-johnson...
I don't remember if it had a flat roof, but probably most office buildings did.
Big props for that (and for the interviewer for looking it up). A lot of nonprofits are glorified jobs programs for politically connected individuals.
Nothing is pure-as-the-driven-snow perfect, but I use Signal.
Try it out. I'm pretty happy with it; managing the feed doesn't feel like trying to hold back the tides anymore.
"Some kind of particle" is a placeholder. They are trying to figure it out, and questioning "our flawed theories" seems to be acceptable, AFAICT.
(I think "dark energy" IS more of a fairy tale, but maybe that's just me)
It's not my work, since I'm not the one defending putting some comments to death while leaving lots of other, equally stupid comments up.
Yes, HN is better than a toxic cesspit full of ignorant teenagers. That's a low hurdle.