clmul

Would be interesting to read that article.

Crime is a problem indeed, but I still feel like adding more lighting in hopes of solving this is not really the solution, and like you say, just moving the problem around.

I think lighting very busy areas (think railway stations, main streets in cities) is a good idea in general, but how many areas are really busy at night? And most people aren't outside in the middle of the night or early morning, so most lights could probably be shutdown after the evening is over?

I don't think the bright lighting which is rampant in cities improves safety in general, (most) people are perfectly able to see in the dark, and city lights merely make it (because of interfering with the adaptation of the eyes) impossible to see in the spots left without lighting.

> Public lightening is, and has been, a major factor against criminality

That's highly debatable (sure, it may feel safer): https://www.darksky.org/light-pollution/lighting-crime-and-s...

In any case, I don't there is much point in keeping the lights on throughout the entire night, but it might be beneficial to (especially during winter months at higher latitudes) light busy areas in cities for part of the evening.

Just don't do that, using recreational drugs is never a solution for anything!

Indeed, I'm not sure whether I would call Lidl in the Netherlands a discount supermarket, food and especially produce like you say is of a high quality, compared to other supermarkets. Usually they don't even have the lowest prices, as other supermarkets also have discount brands which are cheaper, but of lower quality than the cheap products you'd buy in a Lidl.

This assumption is allowed, as n=0 results in infinite recursion (without side-effects) which is undefined behavior:

https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/memory_model

https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/ub#Infinite_loop_...

Sure we can, but I don't think it's very productive to start arguing that society doesn't care about men's issues. I don't immediately see what society has to do with the lower life expectancy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Sex_difference...

We don't know why exactly these deaths of despair are increasing, and I don't think it's right to assume that it has anything to do with people not caring about "men's issues", as the problem does not seem to be unique to men, from the article:

> Young women are also experiencing a sharp uptick in drug overdoses

It's fairly well-known that there is more medical knowledge about men, and women are affected in different ways by diseases, about which more knowledge is needed.

See for example this article: https://www.ft.com/content/7864ae80-9597-11e8-95f8-8640db906...

I know that it is used at least for the implementation of functions like memcpy.

LEO cascades would not affect GPS in any way, as GPS satellites are in much higher orbits.

It might also be a possibility that this isn't possible to be replicated in an artificial way (that is, human beings maybe aren't smart enough to ever understand their own intelligence, even using all tools to their disposition)

In a certain way, brains are so complicated that (at least for the moment) they seem quite magical to us

> Therefore we should try and figure out a way to make it safe before AGI exists.

Makes no sense to me, how would you ever be able to figure out a way to make something safe before it even exists?

Someone who has never built a nuclear reactor most likely could not think of a way to prevent the Chernobyl disaster.

(OK, maybe this is a wrong example as someone who did couldn't do this either, but the point should be clear)

> However, if a form of intelligence where adding more hardware adds more capabilities in the fashion of present computing but where the capacities are robust and general purpose like humans rather than fragile and specialized like current software, then we'd have of amazing power - brilliant people can amazing things.

That's a very big if... Also, I'd argue that most progress happens not because of some brilliant people, but because of many people working together... Then if your AGI only reaches the level of intelligence of humans and maybe a bit more (what does more even mean in terms of human intelligence? more emphatic? faster calculation ability? more memory? what would the use of this be? all things we can't really oversee), it raises the question whether this would ever be possible in a cost-efficient way (human intelligence seems like it is, in a certain way, "cheap").

You presume that by believing in a God you're not living life in the best way you can, but is there really an objective (non-religious) "best way" to live life? I would assume that for the average religious person, the way they live their life feels just about right (barring any intrinsic human shortcomings).

Yes, but a government and a corporation is much more than their head of state and corporate executive. If the actions of the government have a significant negative effect on a majority of the population, you can be quite sure that the government will be overturned at some point.

Tech is most definitely optional: Nuclear energy was for a while considered a great option, but now a lot of people are (unfairly IMO) turning their back on it, and you see that there isn't as significant a number of new plants built (just to give an example)

Governments and corporations are nothing without your Average Joe, in fact, they are just a collection of Average Joes. So I fail to see the analogy here.

AI is a choice (that is, it can probably be ignored, if we don't like it). I'm not sure why people think (negative forms of) AI are in some way inevitable. A lot of people are already afraid of losing their jobs right now, where we can't even fathom the basics of intelligence. I don't think humanity would just let some of the negative forms of AI we all seem so afraid of happen.

Note that this photo is not how it would look without a telescope or very good telephoto lens (with tracking), but it will still be visible

Looking at all the new coal power plants being built / planned in India is really disheartening though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_Mega_Power_Projects

> This included tax returns, account passwords for my wife in case I died, personal documents and spreadsheets, and just about everything I had paper copies of at home.

This is why you should never store passwords on your computer / cloud in plain text.

> Given that I had 2FA enabled for my bank account and the bank account info on Google Drive, it was just a matter of time before the thief started stealing my money.

Is it common in the United States to allow online banking without any physical second factor? My bank requires me to use some kind of device similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Authentication_Program with my card and code to login or execute transactions. I think most other banks in my country require something similar.

I'm also not a lawyer, I can indeed see it being prudent to not go looking at code you're not legally allowed to use related to what you're working on right now (I wouldn't do that). But I can't believe looking at any other code in general would "taint" you in some way.

And yes, clean room design is a bit more extreme in that regard (which is probably something companies/individuals do if they expect a high risk of litigation, as it probably makes it a lot easier to prove that there is no copyright infringement, and certainly not willful infringement)

So, the requirement for Wine and ReactOS mentioned in the other comments is probably not unreasonable.

An argument could be made that the "access to knowledge" does mostly not require the high bandwidths which are being provided as the selling point of the Starlink satellites. Surely most parts of the world already have access to internet via mobile phones, existing communication satellites, or the access could be provided for much lower costs than with Starlink, by creating new infrastructure on the ground.

Here's the thing though: suppose you have worked for some previous employer, and seen their proprietary codebase. By your logic, you'll never be able to work on anything else or for any other employer without being a legal risk to them.

I do not think the chances of me implementing something so similar to something I have read before such that it would constitute copyright infringement are very high. I usually can't even remember the exact way I wrote some piece of code months ago myself, let alone something I read...

This seems like a really silly point of view: it would be similar to saying that anyone ever reading a novel would not be able to write their own.

In the Netherlands, interest rates on student loans are currently 0% (they're tied to the 5 year bond interest rates), and there was a huge outcry when they planned to tie it to the 10 year interest rates instead...