I don't get it. Can't you just block the senders?
5 karma · joined June 1, 2018
https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/24di8y/open_discus...
You can megadose Vitmain C or find a service offering EDTA chelation therapy (or Vit C IV). This restores the condition of the blood, the body removing the peptide-producing organisms on its own. If they have taken hold in the gut, other modalities will likely be necessary. You may also experience temporary relief by using nicotine patches (this occupies nicotinic acetylcholine receptors targeted by the peptides).
If think the idea of _in vivo envenomation_ being "long covid" is absurd, then I DARE you get a simple toxicological test done on your blood, testing for venom.
. . .
The prisoners reasoning is wrong.
> if he hasn't been hanged by Thursday, there is only one day left - and so it won't be a surprise if he's hanged on Friday. Since the judge's sentence stipulated that the hanging would be a surprise to him, he concludes it cannot occur on Friday.
What the prisoner doesn't realize is that, by noon on Thursday, he would have ALREADY been surprised by the news of his Friday hanging. That moment occurred when he did not hear the knock!
The moment of surprise for a Thursday hanging or Friday hanging happen at the SAME point in the future. In other words, at 11:59am on Thursday he will not know if his hanging takes place on Thursday or Friday. At 12pm he will be surprised to know for certain which one it is: it will be Thursday if he hears a knock and it will be Friday if he does not.
"If he hasn't been hanged by Thursday" (ie. has not heard the knock) IS, ITSELF, the surprise of a Friday hanging. He wrongly assumes that his moment of surprise can ONLY happen following a knock. He doesn't realize that this assumption is true for every scenario EXCEPT a Friday hanging, where his surprise will happen in the ABSENCE of a knock on Thursday.
Because he cannot envision himself being surprised by a Friday knock (correct) and assumes he can ONLY be surprised by a knock (incorrect), he wrongly concludes that a Friday hanging is an impossibility, and subsequently concludes the same for a Thursday hanging, etc.
I encourage you to give an example where the execution times are changed and I guarantee you it will suffer from the same assumptive traps as the original "paradox".
This is, frankly, embarrassing.
> if he hasn't been hanged by Thursday, there is only one day left - and so it won't be a surprise if he's hanged on Friday.
This belief is FALSE. The moment of surprise for a Friday hanging takes place at 12pm on Thursday. Of course, this also happens to be the moment of surprise for a Thursday hanging. In other words, at 11:59am on Thursday he will not know if his hanging takes place on Thursday or Friday. At 12pm he will be surprised to know for certain which one it is: it will be Thursday if he hears a knock and it will be Friday if there is no knock.
The prisoner holds this belief because he makes the FALSE assumption that his moment of surprise MUST occur at the sound of the knock ON THE DAY of the hanging. The prisoner correctly understands that there cannot be a moment of surprise on Friday but, due to this assumption, incorrectly reasons that a Friday hanging cannot be a surprise. It will be a surprise, but he will experience that moment on Thursday, not Friday.
The prisoner pictures himself at 12:01pm on Thursday wondering how he could possibly be surprised for a Friday hanging. He doesn't realize he has ALREADY been surprised by the news of his Friday hanging. That moment occurred one minute earlier (12:00pm)!
The remainder of the "paradox" text is rendered nonsensical because the reasoning is based on the apparent impossibility of being surprised by a Friday hanging.
TLDR
The prisoner makes the following faulty reasoning:
1) The moment of surprise must occur on the day of the hanging (FALSE)
2) There cannot be a moment of surprise on Friday (TRUE)
-> Therefore, a Friday hanging cannot elicit surprise
-> Therefore, Friday cannot be chosen as the hanging day
-> Therefore, Thursday cannot be chosen as the hanging day, etc
#1 is assumed to be TRUE by the prisoner. Unlike the other days, the moment of surprise for a Friday hanging occurs the day before when he does NOT hear a knock at 12pm. Therefore, #1 is false and leads to the false deductions
That would be on my shortlist for among the least important talents for team success.
Are you being obtuse? I'm worried about the options that are 1) easiest to perform and 2) arouse the least suspicion.
So, obviously the first two by a mile. The tech is not advanced.
Are you for real? The margins on their dongles are astronomical!
This is classic techy naivety.
When Apple marketing looks at what percentage of their customers almost certainly going to buy dongles exclusively from them, what number do you think they come up with? If you're under 50% you are WAY off.
Tens of millions of dog-loyal Apple customers don't even suspect that using another company's dongle is even an option. And how insane is the markup on Apples dongles? Use your head, man.
For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHL_2K
But this is confusion of ideas once more. Your examples have everything to do with the relentless pursuit of money. This is a separate problem, and is directly related to heart NOT intelligence. Collapse will come to all degenerate societies regardless of intellect and technological prowess.
"When bad actors are made more capable they are made more destructive, therefore, no one should be made more capable."
This idea represents stagnation and fear of one's fellow man. We prevent ourselves from improving our understanding because we worry someone will use it against us. Today's society as an example, this is almost an inevitability! The comments above focus exclusively on the potential negatives. This is not a useful way of conceptualizing the problem.
.
Albert Einstein said in the 1940s: "The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking... the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."
The big problem is that all these new war machines and the surrounding infrastructure are created with the tools of abundance.
These are examples of intellectual augmentation by collaboration of scientists and engineers. However, the resulting destructive technology is made available by the concentration of material resources and therefore is wielded by a select few in powerful positions. Note that the former cannot easily create such technologies without the latter. Note that the former are nearly always NOT the ones operating the technology!
PU President Shirley Tilghman describes a new library that will replace several "isolated" departmental science libraries with one "scientific" library.
Well, to harvest more protein, that scientist makes the shark's brains four times bigger than normal and now the shark's are super-smart and eat all the scientists.
These are simply good intentions and unintended consequences. In the example of shark scientists, augmenting their intelligence by collaboration result in them getting eaten. However, in both examples, a sufficiently augmented intellect could have recognized and avoided the unintended consequences altogether.
.
Critically: do not conflate the consequences of acting on knowledge, with intellect or the augmentation thereof.
The material results CAN be negative. The phenomenon of intellectual augmentation itself is only of positive consequence: problems CAN be solved more effectively. Problems can be solved poorly and have unintended consequences but this is unrelated. The wrong problems can be solved and this is also unrelated. The problems solved can be for the sole purpose of killing and this is also unrelated.
The sentiment is that intellectual augmentation should be discouraged in general because The Few that have the resources to produce destructive results will be made that much more dangerous, by intent or by mistake. This is FEAR, not certainty. The far more dire consequence is that your fellowman, who wishes to collaborate and solve all sorts problems for the greater good and otherwise, is DENIED the tools to facilitate his problem solving. And subsequently, humanity is DENIED all the good that could arise from such a scenario.
I don't intend to deny those who are pessimistic about the overall effect of augmentation tools in the hands of present-day humanity, nor am I an optimist on the subject. But to state confidently about net loss or gain to humanity from such tools is FOLLY. I would say: make intellectual augmentation tools and have them available to everyone. Not because bad things won't happen, but because good things WILL happen. This is where the heart lies and where it GROWS. And don't we agree it's this that is lacking?
"When bad actors are made more capable they are made more destructive, therefore, no one should be made more capable."
This idea represents stagnation and fear of one's fellow man. We prevent ourselves from improving our understanding because we worry someone will use it against us. Today's society as an example, this is almost an inevitability! The comments above focus exclusively on the potential negatives. This is not a useful way of conceptualizing the problem.
""" Albert Einstein said in the 1940s: "The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking... the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."
The big problem is that all these new war machines and the surrounding infrastructure are created with the tools of abundance. """
These are examples of intellectual augmentation by collaboration of scientists and engineers. However, the resulting destructive technology is made available by the concentration of material resources and therefore is wielded by a select few in powerful positions. Note that the former cannot easily create such technologies without the latter. Note that the former are nearly always NOT the ones operating the technology!
""" PU President Shirley Tilghman describes a new library that will replace several "isolated" departmental science libraries with one "scientific" library.
Well, to harvest more protein, that scientist makes the shark's brains four times bigger than normal and now the shark's are super-smart and eat all the scientists.
These are simply good intentions and unintended consequences. In the example of shark scientists, augmenting their intelligence by collaboration result in them getting eaten. However, in both examples, a sufficiently augmented intellect could have recognized and avoided the unintended consequences altogether. """
Critically: do not conflate the consequences of acting on knowledge, with intellect or the augmentation thereof.
The material results CAN be negative. The phenomenon of intellectual augmentation itself is only of positive consequence: problems CAN be solved more effectively. Problems can be solved poorly and have unintended consequences but this is unrelated. The wrong problems can be solved and this is also unrelated. The problems solved can be for the sole purpose of killing and this is also unrelated.
The sentiment is that intellectual augmentation should be discouraged in general because The Few that have the resources to produce destructive results will be made that much more dangerous, by intent or by mistake. This is FEAR, not certainty. The far more dire consequence is that your fellowman, who wishes to collaborate and solve all sorts problems for the greater good and otherwise, is DENIED the tools to facilitate his problem solving. And subsequently, humanity is DENIED all the good that could arise from such a scenario.
I don't intend to deny those who are pessimistic about the overall effect of augmentation tools in the hands of present-day humanity, nor am I an optimist on the subject. But to state confidently about net loss or gain to humanity from such tools is FOLLY. I would say: make intellectual augmentation tools and have them available to everyone. Not because bad things won't happen, but because good things WILL happen. This is where the heart lies and where it GROWS. And don't we agree it's this that is lacking?