callesgg

There are Photon-counting Cameras but they can not be used when there are allot of photons. As an example; the max nr of photons per second and pixel from one of the commercial ones is 10^7 photons/s/pixel.

It happens cause the words sound similar and they are also spelled in a similar way.????

Doubt that it is hard. A carrier must send out an emense amount of RF. There are satellites that have large antennas (probably when deployed bigger than football fields. “Think something like a large net made of thin wires”) listening in to the things that happen here down on the ground.

Is the solution not sort of easy?

You first ask the ai if the input prompt is nefarious with a yes or no question in a first pass. You don't show the user this output.

If the first pass indicates the input prompt is nefarious. You don't continue to the next pass. If the first pass says the input prompt is okay you pass the input prompt to the ai.

I guess it is computationally costly to run the ai twice, but I bet you would get very good results. You might be able to fool the first pass, but then it would be hard to get useful responses in the second pass.

It has things that are functionally equivalent with intentions for the given situation.

If it did not, it would not be able to produce things that look like they require intention.

The “lies” it tells are also like it’s intentions for the situation functionally equivalent with normal lies.

Not that I would buy a new Mac and install linux on it...

But if I did, it would be cause apple has unmatched hardware build quality. (But also the battery time would as you mention also be a nice thing)

We are missing a premise about whether Notepad++ is a thing in life.

Evolution.

Insects that spend time on the open road have less chance of survival and reproduction than those that stay in their natural habitat.

Mary would probably not be able to see that the apple was red.

Just like I can’t hear the difference between sounds in many Indian words Mary would not be able to differentiate colorized things from non colorized things. Her brain would have learnt to ignore the color signal that the eye provides. Just like my brain has learnt that the different sounds in Indian words is not worth processing.

True, it would be helpful in that kind of way. The risks does seam to outweigh the benefits.

That said, the blame game would still be there, and people would pull that card...

I Honestly thought it was common belief that corona come from that lab in china.

But now after reading this, I searched a bit and read up on it and I guess it is still a somewhat honest debate on the topic.

Even if it was lab made, it would be sort of stupid to dig in to it, due to the political nature of the matter. What happened happened, most likely the release would have been accidental, so why play blame games.

My main takeaway from the article is that it is scary that aircraft safety is so dependent on a signal that is so easily generated and spoofed.

From the article it sounds like anyone can go to an airport and simply send some garbage signals towards an approaching aircraft to make it deploy air breaks and crash if the pilot is not quick to react.

When I think about it it seams like a common thing in aviation tech. ads-b has similar issues, it is completely unauthenticicated/unsigned there is 100% trust.

Anyone can pretend to be anyone else.

Pirsig's first book talks a bit about classical vs romantic thinking. Which is a loot like the articles description of functional and aesthetical quality.

"and so on" was meant too mean "and other stereotypical autistic behaviours".

It seams a key difference between us here is that you think stereotypes are dismissive. I just think of them as things that are more common statistically on average in the group of people vs in some other group of other people.

Not my intent, there was a question about what does and what does not constitute proper behavior.

I gave a description that clarified that to a certain extent. The description is just a description, an answer to a question.

It was not a counter argument, we are not having an argument. It was just an observation. Also you are mis quoting me I did not say “always”.

I am not here to tell you who you are or how you are like. I am here explaining a hypothesis.

Labels are what they are. Some are useful some are not, some are emotionally coupled some are not.

If you look at what a person does you can make hypothesis's about what is in their mind. It is what the field of psychology is all about.

Proper behavior, like not being mean, answering people when they talk to you, not bashing your head in to walls when you are upset and so on.

That is commonly what people with high functioning autism says in response to that hypothesis. My assumption is that when you develop good enough of a theory of mind later in life. You are in a situation where you can see how bad you where before and how much better you became after. So you think you are now good at it.

It’s like a dunning Kruger effect.

It is also important to note that good does not necessarily mean correct or accurate (even if that certainly can be a part of it)it means useful for guiding proper behavior.

With that said, the hypothesis is not that bad mentalization abilities is equal to autism. It is that bad mentalization causes you to adopt/learn unconscious behavioral patterns and those patterns are what we classify as autism. This means that even when you “fix” the bad mentalization ability. The person still has all of those behavioral patterns ingrained in them.

I think dysfunctional theory of mind(mentalizing) explains allot more on a more general plane than monotropism does when it comes to the autistic mind.

That said one might make the leap that poor mentalization is a effect caused by monotropism as the article seams to imply. It’s a chicken and egg problem.

I personally tend to think that poor mentalization ability leads to problems when it comes to subconscious guiding of attention.

For the neocortex yes, but there are other (older & deeper) parts of the brain that are definitely task specific. If you come to me without a basal ganglia or a hippocampus. I would be very very surprised if you were "normal".

She basically never had a temporal lobe... its not like parts of the neocortex are specially built for certain tasks.

Certain parts of the neocortex just happen to lie close to places where certain information from sensor input happen to flow. As such those said parts specialise in dealing with the information that they happen to be provided with.

On OS X you can run:

# system_profiler SPUSBDataType

Right super sad, it was the best native client I have ever seen, and they trashed it so they could make the interface more dopaminergic.

I bought a cheap gps clock for 70 usd 3 years ago. The price should be even lower today :)

I understand why a person would think like that…

It makes sense that someone would come to that conclusion given certain beliefs about the world.

I call it ridiculous cause I think it is narrow minded and not optimal to think of things like that.

"Correct" and "good" depends on the context where you evaluate.

example: Shaking peoples hands is a strange social norm and a risk for spreading infections. But it is a useful interaction that you can play out when you are interacting with someone.

Most social norms make perfect sense. They have evolved from reasons that make sense in the context where they are performed.

I read a ridiculous text, and I then I tried to figure out what made the author write that ridiculous text. After which I responded with the hypotesis that was the result of my pondering.

The pondering is not intended as a truth about the authors mental state, it is simply my intuition of an idea that a mind that would write such a statement might be blind to.

But who knows... here I am on the internet trying out my ideas.

It is true that many people who are not diagnosed with autism have quite terible theory of mind to.

But it seams like you are missing a part of what poor theory of mind means here. It means that you don’t understand yourself and your own minds tendencies just as much as you don’t understand other peoples perspectives.

Autism or at least high functioning autism is characterised by poor theory of mind.

ie. you have defective/poor/inaccurate models for understanding how emotions effect thoughts/behaviour and the other way around. More or less the same thing as poor emotional intelligence.

If someone would tell me that they have a little bit of autism I would interpret that as them having poor emotional intelligence.

I dont understand why the easterneuropeans keep publishing strange software on strange fourums why don’t they just use GitHub???

When I wanted to change some hidden settings on my car I found many strange software packages on these strange forums. But nothing on GitHub, these forum people live in their own strange walled of garden.