blake8086

I think a more accurate interpretation is "the simplest explanation is the likeliest". It follows as a consequence of Solomonoff induction.

How is a keyboard going to not know what you type or look up things on the internet without having internet access?

Isn't this a body transplant?

How does Ion help with schema evolution? I see it mentioned, but not described.

sent edit: thanks!

It's not that insane when compared to the alternative.

Have you considered Patreon?

I actually just had my home cleaned yesterday through this service. I'll be sad to see it go =(

Wow, Steam really made this painful. I bought the game, only to find out it doesn't run on my platform. No refunds! Beware, I guess.

After using them in various Google bathrooms, I spent the money and added a Toto washlet to my toilet. It has easily been worth it.

Is this based on fountain codes?

It's true that works, but which part of that is an advantage over the web the way it is now?

So, what's an example? It's really hard to have dynamic content with IPFS because it doesn't really have the concept of a "request", only a lookup-by-key type of thing. For example, consider how difficult it would be to make a simple messaging app with IPFS.

I have a question about IPFS. I don't mean this in ANY kind of negative way at all, but what problems does IPFS solve?

I got really excited about IPFS when I first learned about it, but after to talking to people for a while, I actually made a document titled "What problems does IPFS solve?" and thought for a long time. It's still blank.

I would love to hear from anyone involved with the project what applications this could have.

Have you thought about what "we" means there?

I wish there was some way to change prices to alter demand. Maybe a "task force of thought leaders" can crack open an Econ 101 textbook and look at the supply and demand curve on the first page.

Sorry for the sarcasm, I'm just disappointed in the "reach for regulation first" approach to dealing with shortages.

But what if you feel entitled to go?

Was it Chronotron? http://www.kongregate.com/games/scarybug/chronotron

It doesn't seem to do anything to monitors (I just re-tested). I'm guessing because a monitor only really shows me three colors, there's no problem.

The glasses don't seem to help with distinguishing colors on monitors.

I can discern color on monitors just fine, I'm only partly deficient, not completely color-blind.

I don't think there are any options, I just got "large" "black" sunglasses in one of the few frames they offer.

I have red-green deficiency, so red and green both seem like they have a lot of white in them (I found out). For instance, green traffic lights actually look white-green to me without the glasses, and same for red. The sunglasses make them look like a pure, brilliant green or red with no white added.

I would describe it as a pretty big difference, it's not tiny, it's really obvious, and whenever I forget my sunglasses or can't wear them for whatever reason, the outdoors look really muted.

They won't work if you have complete color blindness, because there's no red-green distinguishing information to work off of.

I have these, they work for me. They make a really big difference in distinguishing things like red/green traffic lights, or vegetation on top of red brick. They also just make all of nature look a lot nicer.

If you have any questions about them, I would be glad to answer.

Eliezer wrote something relevant to these types of proposals eight years ago: http://lesswrong.com/lw/jb/applause_lights/ when he asked someone calling for "democratic, multinational development of AI":

  Suppose that a group of democratic republics form a
  consortium to develop AI, and there's a lot of politicking 
  during the process—some interest groups have unusually
  large influence, others get shafted—in other words, the
  result looks just like the products of modern democracies.
  Alternatively, suppose a group of rebel nerds develops an
  AI in their basement, and instructs the AI to poll everyone
  in the world—dropping cellphones to anyone who doesn't have
  them—and do whatever the majority says.
  Which of these do you think is more "democratic", and
  would you feel safe with either?

A lot of these points sound nice: "we should regulate this and that" "we should be careful with such and such", but what would actually incentivize any politician ostensibly regulating AI to do the right thing? Or even find out what the right thing is?

This is a feel-good article, but all I can ever see it accomplishing is actual harm by advocating the idea that the worst decision-making process humanity has developed (politics) should be applied to the most dangerous threat humanity has to face (self-improving AI).

I don't mean to sound too harsh, it's nice to see more and more people beginning to take the threat AI poses seriously, but I think it's a dangerous leap to reach for the first tool in your toolbox (regulation) to try and handle such a problem.

Perhaps "cached thoughts"? http://lesswrong.com/lw/k5/cached_thoughts/

What if it involves hash collisions?

How should I go about resetting my fingerprint after it's compromised?

This is great! Now these companies can become the new government-granted oligopoly that tries to use regulation to block future "disruptive" competition, and the complaint cycle can start anew!

If I were, say, some sort of Global Passive Adversary, I would try very hard to spy on Mitnick's communications. Then I could have all the vulnerabilities, and know who is buying and selling.

I wonder if maybe that has occurred to anyone.

Isn't that 5.5 years of sequential trying? This is a parallelizable problem. There's also no restriction on how fast a cracking machine is allowed to be, so I doubt 80ms is the lower limit.

There is a post on the front page right now http://www.gentweb.co.uk/wirerecorder.htm about re-constructing some old wire recordings just to listen to the past. Imagine the opportunity to bring the person themselves back, instead of just audio.

I think if technology advances sufficiently that it is "easy" and "cheap" enough, people will resurrect cryo-preserved patients just because it suits them to do so.

If I had a button I could push that would bring someone who died in 1800 back to life, I would push it.

I believe I'm not the only person who feels this way, either.