It seems completely reasonable to object to using mammals in one’s tech projects, while admitting the value to using animal models to advance medical science.
235 karma · joined August 17, 2020
It seems completely reasonable to object to using mammals in one’s tech projects, while admitting the value to using animal models to advance medical science.
That said: Netflix's deployment of "wokeness" can feel completely shoehorned in and utterly arbitrary, a cynical technique that affirms the viewers' perspective, thereby increasing engagement.
I'm not "outraged" by it in the slightest. It tends to align with my own worldview. But at the end of the day it just makes for crummy content.
The way this comment is written makes it sound as if 100% of people will be using psychedelics after decriminalization goes into effect.
I imagine that the number of people who even hear or read about these privacy leaks represent a minuscule fraction of the user base.
And of those that are aware of these leaks, a small fraction are concerned about internet privacy.
Try to see it from this perspective; your experience as an individual (soul) is a feature of the structure we call Homo sapiens. It's a characteristic of this species' brain structure, in the same way that the colors of a flower are characteristic of its phenotype.
It would be silly to ask, "What are the chances that that shade of yellow ended up on that particular daffodil?"
The notion of "you" being in a "body" is extremely difficult to shake. Even if it's intellectually approachable, understanding it intuitively is something else entirely, though certainly attainable through sustained meditative practice or a hearty dose of psychedelics.
I've heard a good deal about Alan Kay's dissent of the state of OOP, but I've never seen a concise summary of his vision or the principles that Kay's 'ideal' realization of OOP would adhere to.
Does such a resource exist, written by Kay himself or otherwise? Or do I just need to go play around with Obj C or Smalltalk to really "get it?"
However, I entirely agree with the sentiment: We don't necessarily understand brains now, but we don't dismiss their capabilities just because we can't explain precisely how they do what they do. By the same token, complex tools like deep learning shouldn't be dismissed just because we can't satisfactorily interpret them.
So I'd have a hard time saying this is not dramatically less "real" than some lossy compression technique. Is there some way to formalize "realness?" Maybe it would be inversely proportional to the hardness of manipulating the medium as a user..?
This is certainly a fascinating notion, but it assumes arbitrary boundaries that have no real foundation in reality. Imagine instead what a staggering feat it is that the very cells that demonstrate all these remarkable biochemical behaviors can work in concert to drive a car!
I find this change in perspective to be quite instructive...that "humans" are not made of "cells," so much as collections of "cells" have developed a behavior that we describe as "human."
Of course, provided 4 billion years of evolution, this has yielded staggering complexities, but at the heart of it is just globs.