JulianChastain

I find the claim subjective experience may be illusory absolutely baffling. I can only speak for myself with certainty, but I am entirely sure I have subjective experience. All the other propositions I believe could be false but I don't see how I can be wrong about experiencing something. I could be a brain in a vat (or weights on a GPU) and be specifically programmed to only come to false beliefs and still I can be sure that there is an experience I am the subject of. I cannot provide empirical evidence for my experience, that is why it is subjective. I cannot be entirely sure you are experiencing anything, and when I encounter people who don't share the same baseline intuition here I do begin to wonder if this is truly a universal across humanity. But I can't think of any other assumption which I would be more comfortable as a foundational axiom other than, "I am experiencing something." I do not require additional evidence for it because I experience the truth of it directly

> The report complains that when asked about the age of the universe, AIs just give the scientific consensus answer of 13bn years, never mentioning that young earth creationists believe it’s 600 years old

Is certainly a typo, off by an order of magnitude. 600 years ago the Christian Church had already been around for more than 1000 years. Young earth creationists believe the earth is ~6000 years old

Both are damaging and shouldn't be normalized, for similar reasons.

When I grew up, I was taught that if someone in your friend group makes a racist joke, you should stand up to them, and inform them that casual racism leads to normalizing racism.

Even if "Kill All Men" was just a shibboleth of a specific online culture, it seems like objecting to it would be a kind of moral duty (for the same reasons), as long we are in agreement that normalized misandry is bad. But again, in my generation I don't think there was any kind of consensus that misandry is wrong. That's why objecting to a shibboleth like this would be evidence of how "oblivious" and behind the times you are

Yeah that wasn't meant to be an accurate transcript of a whole conversation, just wanted to sketch out the ideas involved. The "kill all men" bit would come after getting to know the other person and talking to them about how they see the world, they wouldn't say that to introduce themselves

It feels like there's almost no engagement with the actual claims I'm making.

From the original claim of, "Nobody really thinks men are the cause of most of societies problems."

My response was, "While growing up I was taught and interacted with people who definitely thought men were the cause of most of societies problems."

The counter was, "You must be a terminally online virgin with no friends then."

From my perspective I have a rich social life that includes both genders and would consider myself a feminist. But it really is radicalizing that even mentioning experiences of casual misandry is met with accusations of social ineptitude

I don't know what exactly you're asking by "Who are the people I have these conversations with?" They were real-life in-person interactions, most often with young women I knew in college. It's interesting that even when I specifically say that I don't know whether my experience generalizes I still get subtly accused of having a preconceived narrative that I tried to confirm. I can only give you a n=1 sample size. But in my experience growing up in the US casual misandry is very normalized, in a way that contrasts to the stigma that surrounds casual misogyny.

I am not claiming my experience generalizes here. But my experience was absolutely saturated by a narrative that men are oppressors who are the cause of many/most of the ills of society. The nuance of only including men who are "evil" was not present in my experience. A conversation might go like:

A: "Kill All Men! They are disgusting"

B: "Well, surely not all men, some men are noble or allies to your cause"

A: "When I look at who the evil people are, they are almost all men, and they are supported by many men. Men are responsible for the evil and for failing to stop the evil. For every man that commits date rape, there's 5 men that hear about it and don't do anything. They are all responsible, and just as guilty."

I'm certainly not claiming that there is widespread oppression towards men, but at least in my generation (particularly in higher education) the overton window includes denigrating masculinity but doesn't include admiring it.

I grew up with the sentiment that forms of masculinity are some of the chief evils of society being the dominant narrative. I grew up learning that the US is patriarchal culture, and that it must continue to evolve and progress in order to truly provide equal opportunity to women. This narrative always seemed to view men as a kind of primordial oppressor. I remember in high school and college it was common for some people to say, "Kill All Men!" as a half joking slogan. I'm 24 for reference.

As far as I can tell all the data on loneliness points to equivalent rates between genders

It seems salient to ask the follow up question of "Why aren't men getting laid and/or married?" Actually finding the root cause may be much less simple. Your response seems as hand wavy to me as saying "Most of the loneliness epidemic is really an epidemic of people feeling lonely"

It seems totally inconceivable to me that you could accurately predict how long until we will know whether BB(7) is greater than Graham's Number.

By representing all numbers with lists (or sets). 0 = [] 1 = [True] 2 = [True, True] Etc. Then for example addition becomes appending two lists together

What about "we were cut from the deal"? It seems like you could make a phrase in which 'cut' means "to exclude"

I got h = c(c)(c)(c)(c), just by playing around with it

`wat(foo)` also works. The author says he implmented the `wat / foo` syntax to allow you to more quickly use wat by avoiding parentheses

A charitable interpretation of nico is that he was saying a well-trained NN is itself a model of the world. If it can tell you what a system will do given some inputs, then it functions as a model. While internally it isn't creating a model that we could understand, it does "model the world" in the sense that we can treat it as a model

Well I mean the reason you can't optimize away the stack frame is that at any point during runtime f can be redefined to be a different function. In the above example, do you agree that any tail call elimination would result in the wrong evaluation of `g(5) = 0` instead of the correct `g(5) = 4`?

And your understanding of why python doesn't permit TCE is because functions are globally scoped with indefinite extent?

Let's say you had a library function foo, which takes no arguments, does an expensive computation, and then prints a single result to the console. You need the function to instead return the value, so that you can do more computation on it. You could write a wrapper function that will call foo, but replace the print function with one that records the printed result.

For example:

  def foo():
      print('usually this value is inaccessible from "python land"')
  def extract_printed_values(bar):
      global print
      old_print, returnv = print, None
      def new_print(x):
          nonlocal returnv
          old_print(returnv := x)
      print = new_print
      bar()
      print = old_print
      return returnv
  fooval = extract_printed_values(foo)

fooval will then be equal to whatever value foo printed to the console, otherwise foo will behave exactly the same as normal (assuming it only printed a single value), and print will even behave normally afterwards

I think that the first amendment prevents congress from banning tiktok for the reason that the content is objectionable. Instead they would need to argue that it is a nation security risk (spyware, etc)

Yes, I believe that this is due to how python lets you dynamically redefine functions even to violate lexical scoping. So in the author's example:

  def f(x):
      if x > 0:
          return f(x-1)
      return 0
  # Here is where a compiler might assume that f(x) is tail recursive, and so do TCE
  g = f
  def f(x):
     return x
  g(5)

So according to the python standard, g(5) returns 4, since it calls the original f, but then the first recursive call will go to the new f. If f was TCE'd, then it would return 0, as the actual recursion would be eliminated, so it wouldn't matter that you've reassigned f to a new function.

Some of the motivation for this comes from how often devs want to contribute to open source but are intimidated by how difficult the barrier of entry is, particularly for large projects. It's surprisingly hard to find a good list of projects that a beginner or even intermediate programmer can substantially contribute to. The ones that do exist tend to have the low hanging fruit plucked pretty quickly.

Iirc California has the most "nice" days on average of any state. "Nice" = between around 60°-80°F and Sunny. If you want to spend the whole year outdoors California is the best state to do it in.

I would recommend `zod` as a good typescript schema runtime validation library as well. It does require strict type checking to be on however.

Presumably because the author feels that simply characterizing the anti-crypto position as bearish doesn't do justice to the animosity many people hold towards crypto. He's also not saying he is bullish on crypto currency, just that he doesn't think the frothing at the mouth hatred of it is justified.

Is there any way to see what the expected regex was after failure? I feel like this could be a great review tool if that was added

Do you think the purpose of prison is primarily to rehabilitate prisoners into society or to give just, deserved punishment for offenses to society? If you agree with the former, then making conditions better than the legal baseline could humanize the prison population and increase their chances and motivation to reassimilate themselves into society. If you agree with the latter, then I don't see a good argument for bettering the conditions of prisoners. From a basic utilitarian standpoint, it seems very clear that policy guided by the the rehabilitation principle will result in better outcomes than policy guided by the punishment principles.

A right to death is not mutually exclusive to aiding the poor/reducing misery.

I don't understand your critique about making money at all. I broadly agree with the comment you responded to, and my motivation is purely wanting to leave life on my own terms. It seems strange to accuse the commenter of having some ulterior financial motive.

There certainly needs to be provisions preventing marginalized people from being pressured to kill themselves. But this is also not exclusive to a right to death.

The excess solar panels won't be built if there isn't demand for them. PoW mining creates that demand

I think the whole point of the term neordivergent is imply that many mental disorders aren't impairments in the sense of stop you from living life, but are different ways of perceiving. For example, I know an eye surgeon who was diagnosed with ADHD in his forties. He is incredibly successful and by all external measures well adjusted. This was because he had developed a set of very successful coping strategies to make up for his lack of executive function. I agree that it's pretty easy to falsify, I just think you have to actually ask the patient about how they experience life to do so.