dan_mctree

Eh, he still seems pretty smart. The issue is more his narcissistic traits, pettiness and emotional weakness

In just these decades, our software has already surpassed the ability of dogs to drive cars. And that despite the fact that dogs are a whole lot closer to humans than machines are to humans

>It wouldn't have. Make your game as a sketch with whatever sketching tools you have...but don't expect technology to rescue you from needing other humans to make it good. AND DON'T UNDER-RATE OR UNDERPAY THOSE PEOPLE.

>Because trust me, if you're disappointed that AI isn't giving you good enough art, you're no visionary. You haven't even tried people.

That's all well and good if you have a spare few million lying around and expect to make even more, but that's not the experience of the vast majority of indie game developers. They need to make the art themselves or find someone to make it for free

It should be at least broad enough to compensate for some movement of the earth, considering it was observed for at least some days

Dune 2000 was pretty good back in the day. I enjoyed its gameplay and its art looked great for the time. It felt about the same tier of fun as C&C and Red Alert, though perhaps a bit less replayable due to maps feeling rather samey. Certainly worth checking out though if its still runnable

Similar experience, I asked it to prove the square root of 2 is irrational. It seemed to try to pretend to do the standard proof using even numbers, but then randomly made a weird leap and declared victory:

"we get 2k^2 = q^2. Since q^2 is even, this means that q must be even as well. But this contradicts the original assumption that q is not equal to 0, so we must conclude that √2 is irrational"

The language of these fake proofs tends to resemble real math well enough that I hope it doesn't fool people.

In areas other than math I've been very impressed however with it overall. While human experts are obviously still better in terms of depth, accuracy and creativity, it's already pretty good. Whereas in terms of breadth, no human could compare. Given the rate of improvements, these things seem destined to launch a new era

>That is all to say: frontier physics is utterly unlike religion, where so may claim to KNOW the truth, where the most tenuous claims are literally gospel, where there is little desire admit counter-evidence

There's frontier theologists too that are very open to evidence from all sorts of angles. Yes, most religious people aren't trying to hit new ground, but most scientists (and physics loving laymen) aren't either. Most physicists work within established models, just like most religious people

>the other to either accept things without questioning them or even try to find proof for something you already believe, ignoring all contradictions.

I feel like this isn't at all what most religious people are doing and that you're presenting some kind of strawman to make them seem alien and dumb

There's really roughly two camps, one which is very much questioning the existence of God and are actually busy trying to find the answer to the existence question by finding evidence. Sometimes in scripture, sometimes in others or in nature. Often these people are actually somewhat open to counter arguments. These people are generally somewhat equivalent of physicists with a pet theory they're trying to pursue, develop and prove, say string theorists.

The other camp believes strongly, and isn't so much involved with whether or not God exists, but instead they deal with the details. They might think about how the trinity works, talk about trying to reach the youth, working on helping people in their local community, etc. These people are kind of the equivalent of physicists who work within the existing framework of established physics. Whether that's through applied physics or by say trying to analyze the composition of some star.

Strongly agree. The main reason we got so much out of physics and chemistry has little to do with the statistical methods and peer review they employed, and much more with how obviously some things were repeatable when found. You need basically 100% reproduction rates to be able to do something truly useful and that's a bar you just can't hit with some fields

From what I can tell on the map, it indeed seems quite a heavy long tail, with what was surprising to me, particularly heavy emissions from midsized industrial sites.

The top 50 emitters make up about 4% of the total, which is a lot, but perhaps not as much as you might think. They largely seem to consist of oil and gas fields.

I would've expected the large cities, including the smaller companies without individual mentions within to form the bulk of emissions. However, you see things like megacities like London with only 4.4Mt of co2 emissions, while there's tons of random cement factories around with 1Mt of co2 emissions. Power plants also make up less of the emissions than I expected, except for those in China, which seem less efficient than those in the west (except you DRAX and Belchatow)

It looks like if we found ways to significantly reduce emissions of: oil/gas fields, cement plants, steel plant, coal mines, airports and Chinese power plants, that'd make a huge impact.

>Yes, it'd be nice if oil refineries were run tightly enough that they had no local emissions, but those refined products are all going into the fuel tanks of jet planes, ships, trucks, power plants and personal vehicles, from whene they will be combusted to CO2 and injected into the atmosphere, so does it really matter where the emissions take place

If you can avoid waste at the refineries and the fields, less fossil fuels will have to be dig up to fulfill the same demand. Of course waste is an important issue to tackle. Sure, lowering demand or restricting supply may do more, but waste is often a relatively easy thing to tackle.

Malnutrition is common in the west too, though it more often takes the form of unhealthy overeating. Lack of physical exercise and lives lived inside also contribute to poor every day health. You're right that sanitation and maternal health are better in the west, but those are things that tend to outright kill you if they get to you. The western style health issues are more constant and boring, leading to a different type of suffering.

Likewise with the institutional access and class system, the west has a more sort of guaranteed based level of societal support. But in India, chances are larger that you'll have a more local social support group of family and friends. In comparison the west is often much more isolated and lonely

Obviously I'd still prefer being poor in the west, but I think it's reasonable to say we also have forms of suffering here that are different in kind and sometimes worse than in India

Poverty in the west is often of a different kind than in India. Deep poverty in India can look living in self build house in a slum, with no or low and irregular income most of which goes straight into food and necessities.

Deep poverty in the west often looks like having a stable income and roof, but being completely overwhelmed by high unavoidable static costs such as rent, health insurance, loan paybacks, etc. Of course this style of poverty is also present in India

They're different kinds of experience. I suspect the former is more dangerous, scary and unpleasant, but the latter is more depressing and suffocating.

Pretty sure it's much harder than Chinese. The depth and abstraction of the concepts involved and the density of these concepts in these lines vastly eclipses anything in any natural language

>yet everything we actually need to survive is intact.

Unfortunately we now rely on our machines to survive. If they'd suddenly disappear, we'd have a bit of a massive problem. We just wouldn't do very well without our heavy agricultural machines, our food and fuel supply systems, our water pumps, our fertilizer plants, etc. We're not going to feed 7 billion people without machines anymore, so we'd better fix them fast or risk losing a lot of us.

I'm confused about the conclusion. The way you laid it out, it seems that it could well just be electric signals from the conscious mind triggering the carousel. In which case the experiment would just show that the conscious thought happens first and the body movement after. The subjective experience of it being just before they were going to press the button, could just be explained by a correct built in assumption that every action takes some time

> Other times things suck and you just have to show up and do your best

Yeah, and being in the middle of a burnout means your best is doing pretty much nothing (depends a bit on the job). Plus, by trying, you're potentially prolonging that period of uselessness

>properly secured

Saying those words and imagining it is so does not make it so. Nothing is fully safe and seeing that attitude makes it even less likely it is

Isn't that true for software too though? You cannot ever rely 100% on any tool you use, so if you're serious about actually avoiding penetrations and not just about the academic discussion, you're better off using at least a bit of obscurity on top of your real security system.

But doctors tend to be pretty good at that part of the job you're describing. It's the Dr House part that often seems lacking, difficult patients often spend years going to different doctors only to keep hearing useless suggestions. It'd be amazing if we could have a solution for those people and AI might be able to help

> except that he continued to not read the language documentation before asking a bunch of questions

Can't really blame people for that too much, most language documentation is utterly unreadable unless you already know exactly what you're doing. And even if you do get it, it's in one eye and out the other. Most people just don't learn very well from reading technical information you don't need to use right away. You might be a happy exception and got to build up your notoriety that way

What do you think such an understanding would look like? A youtube rando may well have been researching something for a decade too yet be completely wrong (see: many conspiracy theorists), research time is often not particularly relevant.

Stepping to authority over youtube randos on the other hand seems like a flawed idea too, 'authority' is often a biased group of the old guard. And in the most controversial topics, you'll have widely varying opinions on who the authorities are.

Evidence then? Evidence can be cool, but is often really easy to spin whichever way the talking head wants. And that is if isn't outright doctored.

The scientific process, including peer review? Maybe, but this doesn't work particularly well on some of the most important things we want to discover truth in such as politics an recent events

Even in some kind of ideal world, where we can theoretically try to find the most truthful answer, we'd struggle hard. Let alone in our chaotic society where what's loudest and most catchy is surely going to outcompete whatever is the most truthlike

This is a comment of stunning ignorance.

Just because some alien societies will not mimic our rules of addition, we do know for certain it is possible that other societies can build abstract concepts that are isomorphic to those we have. And many of these concepts, such as addition, are very useful.

Does this guarantee that aliens come up with the same stuff? No. Does it guarantee that if they did, they would these concepts to the same esteem? No. Is there an element of 'truth' here that can be replicated by others? Absolutely

Perhaps the ones you find through google are largely decent quality. If you ask a question yourself, look through new or are chasing some niche bug, you'll find plenty of unhelpful comments critical of question askers who just want to learn.

As a test I just clicked through 10 threads with answers in new, and found answers/comments that could at least vaguely fit the OP in these:

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/74042398/showing-some-te...

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/74042276/checking-if-an-...

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/73197170/nullpointerexce...

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/74042013/how-to-sort-the...

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/64704634/flink-schema-ev...

None of these are among the worst I've seen, but there's certainly already a few here that would discourage me from trying to contribute

>But it also works in spite of all that. If science only worked when done by the best people, it wouldn’t have changed society as much as it has

The vast majority of things in the sciences that have really changed the world are those that could be used to make products that just work. We need reproducibility by entrepreneurs and engineers, not academics if we want to change the world.

Maybe Academics would be better off as an idea generating group, rather than as guardians of correctness, as the latter just doesn't seem to be working very well. Evolutionary strength of ideas is what drives survival of ideas, and correctness just isn't that big of a part of an ideas survival in Academics outside of Math.

If your 1000 hits is roughly reasonable to you, mind if I ask how you find so many sources? In something I'm interested in, I rarely find even a dozen hits on things that seem vaguely related. And for more than half of those, I can't even find access.

Artists which use AI and become more efficient will drive up supply of art and decrease its price. Additionally, some people who need art might just skip the artist entirely now, leading to less demand. This means some artists may no longer be able to make a living. As in, they're effectively replaced.

Does it just take a really low res version of the original, and then try to make something out of the noise with the prompt? It's striking how things seem to morph into something else: the blue of the floor becomes a couch and the white decoration turns into pillows

I might be strange but the second seems far more readable than the third to me. The first is of course nonsense.

> I do not believe the religious are in some way actually oppressed

Aren't they? Sure, western religious oppression is not violent and nothing compared to what happens in say Iran. But there are many circles where coming out as religious is a terrible idea and religious people feel it and end up self-suppressing and hiding their identity. Who wants to be known as the Christian when the world has decided they are idiots at best or villains at worst? You never quite know when it's safe to open up and when you could face sudden social exclusion, bullying, internet mobs, career impacts, etc.

If this comment were under my real name I'm not sure I'd have dared type it with the way the winds are blowing. Even with anonymity, it's giving me pause whether it's really a good idea.