duckingtest

Power to be D3 deficient? [0] Do you have some inferiority complex? It's objectively better to have white skin that can tan instead of a darker one. It's always possible to cover from the sun. Only disadvantage: in sunny climates, ~4x higher risk of skin cancer, but the absolute risk is still a minuscule ~25/100k.

"It is evident that as much as 69%-82% of the South Asian populations in India had 25(OH)D levels in plasma less than the minimum acceptable levels of 20 ng/ml"

Skin colors evolved when most people were outside for the entire day. Now the opposite is true.

[0] http://www.pjms.com.pk/issues/octdec208/article/reviewarticl...

You sound like someone who could benefit from 300μg of LSD to think his life through and perhaps make major changes, alternatively psylocybin. No offense, but it seems like you're mindlessly executing a social script meant for someone completely different. Like a Westworld host's loop (a tv series).

Regarding parties, if you want to make yourself social, try MDMA with selegiline. Selegiline is to prevent MDMA from being neurotoxic [0].

>BTW, during that seduction community time I spent endless hours at bars and clubs, surrounded by people having fun and pretending to have fun myself. I never had any fun there. It was more of a war zone which I tolerated in pursuit of a goal.

You weren't alone. Most, if not all, men go to clubs in hope of getting laid. Those that have fun find the whole process fun; a game. They are the most extroverted ones so it may seem like it's the normal way to spend free time, but in reality they're a small minority. Nothing weird with not liking it, or not getting along with those that like it.

>I did that because I was tired of being a virgin

Literally, or do you mean combined with being single? If literally, why all that work on seduction instead of paying a prostitute?

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17881526

How can you know? The only way to really compare two lives would be to live them both.

What does it have with skin color? Just limit the sun for two or three days until you tan, no sunburns after that. It's not like Thais are black. Compare:

https://pixabay.com/p-199674/?no_redirect

https://tonycavanagh.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/5005.jpg

Hardly a big difference. For genetic modification, the best solution is to increase range of tanning rather than changing the constant. It's already possible to get black skin [0] with eg. melanotan-2, so it's not that big of a change.

[0] http://imgur.com/a/I428E

I don't think it's possible to edit autism out until it's actually understood on a mechanical level. It's likely that's what's now called 'autism' in reality are several completely different things with vaguely similar symptoms.

Once it's understood, I don't think it's going to disappear: positive forms of it (ie. milder Asperger's) are going to become a niche option for parents, along with high iq edits of course. The 'little Einstein' option on a menu.

>If this function is in a hot loop, and the entire lookup table fits in L1 cache you can treat KIND_TABLE[id] as only taking ~1-2 cycles.

In isolation, yes, but is that ever actually the case? It's close to certain there's something else that can use L1 cache.

All I see is a form-based code editor with autocomplete + templates. The underlying model seems very low level: eg. at 2:45, manual input of size in bytes - wtf.

Is that video really supposed to show the power of this thing?

Could you elaborate what was hellish about it?

I like depersonalization. Used to get it relatively often as a kid and teen, sadly very rarely now. Guess I'm going to buy a vr!

It's like playing a rpg with 'your' body as an avatar. Which means there's (almost) nothing left except pure will. Very useful, can be used to make a character do things it wouldn't normally do and/or become much more efficient. Everything seems inherently pointless, may as well go with inertia of old goals.

That's how I imagine the first transhumans to think, only with more than one body and hopefully truly independent (ie. mind uploading, distributed computing or something similar).

If what you call racism is inefficient, you should explain what market barriers prevent its disappearance, for developers in the developed world, in the UK in particular.

If its efficient, by calling it a problem you're implicitly saying that some people - presumably company owners? - should make their companies & teams less efficient, which is another way of saying they should waste resources. Even if some would agree with you, by doing that they would open themselves to a danger of being outcompeted by more efficient entities.

'Asians' in British English means people from Bangladesh, India and Pakistan.

If this was really about race (as opposed to skills) non-racist companies would be more effective and out-compete the rest, especially given current shortage. These companies would probably be started by the discriminated people in the first place. Pervasive unjust discrimination is only possible in mono and oligopolies and/or if the law compels it.

Awesome idea, was thinking about something like that for a long time. Not sure about implementation though. You can define algorithmic problems in a declarative way, but what about the rest, ie. 99% of actual work? Like a website. To verify that a result is good would require a human-level ai.

Instead of a hello world example in a video I would like to see a high-level example for something really complex, like:

"The site you're currently viewing is served by a web-server that was designed and built by this network of agents in 12 minutes."

ok then, how high level and reusable that code actually is? Show it.

Totalitarianism, plain and simple. How are you even supposed to verify if a news piece is fake in 24h? You can't.

'<major politician> engaged in a <criminal activity>'. No way to verify. If genuinely fake news, delete - no fine, not delete - big fine. If true, delete - no fine, not delete - risk of fine, which may or may not be returned later, depending on how powerful said politician is...

So the end result is that only news from entities explicitly allowed by the government are safe to keep.

Here's a funny thing: the only government that's not going to abuse this is the one that's not hiding anything nefarious! So the end result is: all stories that uncover really bad things about the government are going to disappear, and the entity that made/published it is going to be labelled 'fake news' if it wasn't already. Which means the only way for a media entity to survive is to self-censor.

It's really funny that something as simple is impossible to predict over longer times, because you would need perfect information. Yet climate science is 'settled'.

>If you would like to edit articles on Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core, you may complete and submit the following form to request a user account. Please read the Terms of Service before requesting an account. Once the account is approved, you will be emailed a notification message and the account will be usable at login.

Request an account?!? What an exclusionary language. How did I find that out? Because I tried to make a tiny edit. Then found out I need an account. Then that I need to 'request' account. Yeah, no, infogalactic just lost me forever.

A very nice example of barriers to participation in action.

>Infogalactic has the right to block or ban any user for any reason whatsoever.

Even more totalitarian language... infogalactic seems to be less inclusive & open than wikipedia today.

>You completely misunderstand the security model if you think one honest stakeholder can prevent these attacks.

Unfounded assertion. The security model is that the chain with most stake is valid. Whether it's stochastic or direct is only an implementation detail.

>There is no concept of an honest stake holder in the eyes of the network

Honest doesn't mean trusted. It just means he never uses that old stake to attack.

>Why do you think this is difficult?

Because owning enough to attack a large currency would be most likely impossible. A small one with few owners would cost at least orders of magnitude more than attacking pow for equivalent size.

>you think only social consensus and not a blockchain is necessary.

That's apples to oranges. Consensus here concerns order of data, not its organization as blockchain.

Regarding algorithm, in fact given how centralized bitcoin in practice is, you could replace all mining by a small set of signers - Gregory Maxwell. He timestamps blocks and everyone trusts him, as long as no contradictory or wrong blocks appear. If they appear, users are to go to r/bitcoin, r/btc and bitcointalk to find out what to do. Which is what happened and is going to happen in case of problems and major upgrades anyway.

There's no negative difference in security; miners' investment costs could be emulated by a collateral deposited in a Swiss bank by the bitcoin users. Which would be way safer than collateral in the form of hardware under direct control of Chinese government. Greg would get interest on that sum as long as he signs and not contradicts.

Actual bitcoin's energy costs are so small as to be worthless for security. 10 blocks cost at most $50k. Just multiply block reward by 10 and rationally assume miners don't mine at loss. 10 blocks is more than enough to deposit, exchange for something else and withdraw that. PoW's supposed energy-based security is so broken it's hilarious. Even shitty actually implemented PoS (ie. Nxt) are like aes to pow's rot13. Bitcoin is really proof-of-collateral, the collateral being asics.

There's a potential positive difference to timestamper-proof however - it's in principle possible to delete keys used for older blocks, so if they were really deleted, the chain upon that point would be eternally safe (assuming signing mechanism itself isn't broken).

>Generally the nothing at stake problem will result in the problem of requiring some trusted source to not lie, regardless of the implementation, see https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos/

Which means infinitely better security than PoW. PoS is resistant to nothing at stake attack as long as at least one smallest stake is indefinitely honest in each block. It doesn't have to be the same, just so that there's no way for an attacker to achieve 100% at any one point. That's because the stakes of true owners have the same voting power, so they cancel.

To not cancel, the attacker has to own something in all histories, but now the cost is real. Even 0.1% of bitcoins is worth more than what ~17 days of mining power costs. He needs to own more than minimum stake of honest parties over all blocks.

The practicality of that is another matter, as is quality of existing implementations, but that's a much much more realistic requirement than using >half of all worldwide available energy for PoW.

If someone still thinks PoW is more secure, consider this: two countries are at war. One uses PoW currency, another one PoS, owned overwhelmingly by citizens from its creation. Which currency system gets destroyed by the enemy country, wrecking their economy as a result? Related point: which one is likely to be wealthier?

P.S. I think in practice all cryptocurrencies are driven purely by social consensus, with pow/pos/other as false rationalization for it. If bitcoin had serious problems due to the current pow algorithm (like: China nationalizes Chinese miners and starts enforcing some regulation worldwide, eg. only state-registered addresses allowed) users would fork fast, thus proving it's not really PoW. Same with PoS, but it's better as it avoids waste.

Their slow-mining start was, I think, a very bad idea. I get that they wanted a more fair distribution and to prevent an initial bubble. However, bubbles and rich early adopters result in organic viral marketing and create a network effect. Given zcash's hype, with a faster coin issuance they had the potential to beat ethereum in marketcap.

I really hope they succeed, anonymous currency is badly needed.

As opposed to Bitcoin developers paid by Blockstream?

Conservation of momentum only works because the gravitational field itself is supposed to have momentum. Similar to how momentum is conserved for an accelerating paddling boat only if you include the sea. Sea analogy is a good one I think, especially because the gravitational field interacts with itself, like water, contrary to electromagnetic fields.

Conservation laws in general are a quirky thing in GR, see: http://people.bu.edu/gorelik/ES_GG_Conservation_Laws.pdf

or http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-i... for a shorter read

>but approximately the Earth would also accelerate faster.

Well yes, Earth has a stronger gravitational pull because of rotation. On smaller distances rotation effects become even more interesting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging

That's not how general relativity works. Spinning would increase its energy, hence increasing its gravitational pull, hence accelerating faster.

How do you know that? Consider a pretty simple and obviously correct device: an electric engine with an internal rotating shaft + a solar panel to power it, floating in space. The faster it rotates, the higher its acceleration in the gravitational field.

It can be fixed with biotechnology.

1. A device that allows knowledge uploading would make most of education obsolete - everyone could know everything there is to know (which is not the same as understanding, but I don't think it's possible to teach understanding anyway, only help someone understand).

2. An equivalent of a drug gland from the Culture series would fix most mental problems, especially motivation and lack of self discipline.

3. An implantable electric powered CO2 to glucose/triglycerides converter would decrease basic survival costs by orders of magnitude, at the same time freeing lots of agricultural land for other use. With no risk of starving everybody would be much more entrepreneurial.

1 requires sf technology, but 2 and 3 is 'just' an engineering problem.

The article doesn't spell it out, but it seems that's how dopaminergic stimulants make it hard to sleep. Dopamine deactivates the sleep circuit. This opens the way to stimulants that doesn't impair sleep and the reverse. That could explain (partially unknown) modafinil's mode of action - a dri that works preferentially on the sleep neurons.

In several EU countries, you can buy melatonin pills made by an actual pharmaceutical companies (which also manufacture prescription drugs) OTC. You could order it online. Note there's a difference between unregulated supplement and an OTC drug.

Although I think your worry about quality excessive, it's not like making pills is rocket science. The supplement companies most likely get the powder in bulk from biochemical factories that also manufacture prescription drugs.

One frame of uncompressed 48bit color 8k video is 190MB. So just sending it through ideal pcie 3.0 16x you're limited to 83fps. Add overhead, latencies, actual transfer slower than theoretical, and especially actual processing requiring several frames at once. 17fps seems good, considering.

What does the robot really want? Literally money? Power over people? Just the planet itself, with humans as nuisance?

In any case, break in to a modern biotechnology lab with everything needed for genetic engineering. Create a highly infective biological thing (not necessarily a virus) that, after infection, creates a biological circuitry that makes a human perfectly obedient after some defined signal. A much simpler versions of that already exist [0]. Now just start infecting people and use their resources to spread it even wider. Even if a small part of a population is immune it's not a problem.

Few days at most and you own everything.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavior-altering_parasites_an...

The only way it can actually work is as an insulation. The venturi effect - which requires wind - cools the air in the constriction due to the pressure drop, but it stops being cool once it leaves the constriction.

A simple sun-powered cooler could work in principle, but at a minimum the exhaust air wouldn't go into the house...

That would be a very bad advice to Michael Tyson or every other athlete who went bankrupt after spending hundreds of millions.