andagainagain

swipe typing is great until you fudge it just a little bit. Then it gets hilarious horrible really fast.

touch type is just muscle memory - you absolutely can touch type with physical keyboards once you learn how.

touch typing on a virtual keyboard on a flat glass screen is hard because they keys are less accurate and don't give you feedback to whether you actually hit a key or not. So you CAN touch type on a screen, just with errors. Way too many errors. Which is why autocorrect is aggressive on all phones these days.

Back when we had physical keyboards on every phone, we didn't need autocorrect because the typing was accurate.

But it is far more likely to actually work. Obsolete sources or not, they're further ahead for actual phone stuff than basically anyone else.

It seems more reasonable to me, and with a roughly equal amount of evidence, that lawsuit culture was created by a mixture of media sensationalizing a couple of lawsuits and lawyers capitalizing on the fear.

yes, that is what I meant. It's been a long time since I've used that info.

The story I remember was that Insulin was the first protein that was sequenced, which is funny because it was before they made the distinction. It's actually too small to be considered a protein now.

I will wholly disagree with this point of view. Telling people that their whole category of thought doesn't exist based on your own personal variants of definitions is belittling.

I put in a different comment that this isn't that different in concept from telling homosexuals that they don't exist because we all love our mothers.

I'm estimating roughly 90-ish characters in a row, roughly 40 rows encoding the spike protein. So about 3600 base pairs. There are 3 base pairs per amino acid, so That's 1200 amino acids.

For comparison, the smallest chain that they technically call a protein is 100 amino acids that's an arbitrary limit to separate proteins from enzymes. So this thing isn't tiny tiny.

But Titin (also called connectin), a giant protein responsible for passive elasticity in mucles, is ~27,000-35,000 amino acids. So this thing isn't even close to the biggest proteins out there.

the "rhetorical technique" is a softer way of saying "manipulative and dishonest" in this context.

Trying to steel man David Foster Wallace here, I would say his point is that, if you define "religion" instead as a sort of personal philosophy, then we all have one. And because we all have a philosophy of some sort, we all have desires, rules, and some sort of ethical principles, we don't have atheists.

The point he has relies on a faulty premise. When people talk about religion and atheism, they aren't using the definition of Wallace. They're using the strict definition - non-theist. Not a theist. They don't believe in god. they are saying absolutely nothing about the rest of their philosophy.

He RELIES on changing the definition of religion into something it very clearly isn't. And he does this in order to provide evidence that people, who obviously exist, must not according to his definition. It's like saying "Homosexuality doesn't exist, because all homosexuality is is is rejecting the beauty of certain genders. But we all recognize the beauty of our mothers and brothers and fellow humans, and the grace they give and the home they provide. No human would be human without loving thy neighbor".

It's insulting. And other than that, it has absolutely no value, intellectually, morally, or otherwise.

This is obviously incorrect. If someone is making an argument then there is a higher bar of what word usage means than stories about santa clause. And using words like "religion" with completely different, fuzzier, less meaningful definitions in order to make a point that doesn't address the topic of religion being discussed is in fact worthless at best. Manipulative and dishonest at worst.

So... to break down the idea, it starts with redefining energy, then leans on that definition to justify making more bitcoin.

What this means has nothing to do with energy, and everything to do with cost savings on bitcoin mining by intentionally increasing electricity load on a system based on electricity variation of renewables.

You can do that IF your goal is to get more bitcoin. But you're not storing energy by doing so. Electrically speaking, you are only a cost on the system.

Also requires knowing what those employees actually want.

This seems like the equivalent of saying "prosecutors aren't going away, and adding defence attorneys on top of that is not an improvement if they share the same flaws".

Lawyers are famously hated around the world. But it's almost universally better to fight one if you have one on your side. Same with unions and companies. Having worked in two companies in the last few years in the same market, in the same area, one union and one not... The difference is night and day in favor of the unionized shop.

This is true for some people, but not for others, which is why this is so hard to generalize. a "linux phone" means different things to different people.

In a perfect world I'd have a phone that is analogous. As iPhone is to Apple, and android is to windows, my phone would be to whatever linux I use. Well, that's a tall order.

And because it's a tall order, the most efficient way to go through features is to start off with easy highly requested features and very slowly move toward the less important features that are harder to implement.

Phones with linux hits both sides of this equation. On one hand it turns out EVEN THOSE things are hard. On the other hand, people don't WANT to work on those things as much because free developers rarely want to work on other people's problems. I mean, some will, and those people are simply better people IMO, but rarely do they WANT to.

I know Elementary does something similar. Every time I hear about it, they make it sound like it's successful, but I've never actually seen any numbers.

Good call, thank you

Deleted

Step 1 - provide evidence.

Consciousness... from a physics perspective. Well that sets off alarms already with the title.

goign through the article, it does get better, but not much. the first step they go through is redefining consciousness. Well, most definitions of consciousness are vague and nearly meaningless, so that would be good news if there's wasn't. But it is... just as vague and meaningless as any other definition, but without the benefit of at least being the same thing other people are talking about.

After that I feel like this gets into my complaints about most philosophy I've read. Complicated ideas based on vague ideas that just sorta ask you to go along and accept it on feel. IMO, I find the whole thing needs some major simplification and/or far more solid premises.

This comes down to reputations largely. I'm sure that 1943 paper tried very hard to keep their reputation. But there is a whole term for thteh sensationalist style of newspapers called Yellow Journalism that's been around for a VERY long time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

And that's just that one term. Before that, wealthy people literally made newspapers to try to push their own points of view onto the public. Heck, the USA was arguably founded on propaganda newspapers. They certainly weren't regularly fair and objective representations of truth, and rarely even tried to be.

Question then - does flatpak require an explicit flag when installing them to access those files? Or is it as I assumed just "flatpak install"

If you need excess permissions, then why use a package format that promises sandboxing?

Of course, in "classic" apps, there is explicitly no protection. They don't promise it, and you don't get those by default when trying to install a snap.

One thing that gets me about the sandbox of flatpak is that it doesn't seem to be up to the user. If the developer of the app chooses the permissions, then there isn't a fundamental difference for security from having all permissions anyways.

Ideally a user installs the app and they would know, without reading anything else about the app, that the app is separate from their system. If any app you install is NOT separate from the system, then... the sandbox is like making a giant wall but having a door right in the middle of it.

They do this consciously, absolutely. And they have for over 100 years.

Math mysteries like this fascinate me, because my first thought was that the problem is so simple it can't be that hard to solve.

Then, within 1 minute of trying it reveals itself to be something close to impossible.

Also he was pretty charasmatic. Not all scientists, even famous ones, are.

Or physics is perfectly fine, and so is materialism.

Quantum weirdness, remember, is defined by physics. It's tested by physics. And it's perfectly compatible with materialism. The problem is in people's understanding.

Full disclosure - I'm no subscribing to finish reading the article. But what it sounds like is "if we change our philosophy to match physics, physics is easy". Quantum physics has always made sense. The only issue was that it wasn't intuitive.

The problem isn't "we can't come up with a definition of life", it's "every time we define life, we don't like the results".

We could make up any definition. The problem is that we instantly think "well, that's stupid, let's define it again". But I'll say it again, that wasn't ever the problem. The problem was when we thought we were talking about one thing, but we were really talking about something else - our own personal heuristic.

And nature doesn't care about your heuristic. Hueristics make terrible definitions.

Virus's are alive by a lot of heuristics. They act alive-ish. They're not alive by a lot of definitions. Bacteria are one species by definition. But since that's not useful, we make up heuristics that separate them into all sorts of species. Go through every situation, every time we are disappointed with the definition of life, and we find that the reason is that we just don't like it. We WANT something else to be called life, because it feels that way.

Most people consider themselves generalists. And it kinda makes sense, because most people, when you know more about them, are generalists.