indrax

>There is zero chance that we can communicate anything at those timespans.

That is a ridiculously strong statement.

Someone living 1000 or even 100 years ago did not have the information we have.(eta: to design a society) Technology also lets us afford things that past societies simply couldn't do.

We sometime learn from evolved biology to make machines, but sometimes we can also see that evolution made a bad design. By learning from what has worked it's not too difficult to design an alternate society that will work just fine for decades or centuries.

Some societies survive by preying on others. Some are stable but prey on their own. I don't want a life in service to a society that evolved to be strong. I want a society that exists for the benefit of the people in it, and improves as we learn better ways to do things. (The current system does change but different structures could be much more adaptable.)

Is there a less distorted news feed that shows lots of U.S. cops standing up against police brutality now?

I agree that killing would cross a line for many, but last year was a pretty good indicator of how US cops treat protesters. Where are the defectors?

If the info we have is proof that no species in history could do any of the things that would let us notice them, then it can't also be strong evidence that they must exist.

I think this comes down to some brilliant twitter marketing. They pushed the idea that to cover tweets you need to convey the look of tweets, which at a minimum pushes their brand, but also lets them embed trackers all over the web.

For any other medium an article can just quote the content.

One difference is that nonviolent protestors were being gassed and arrested. I see nothing strange in an American politician saying that nonviolent civil rights protests should not stop.

Good evidence pointing towards ~infinite energy or some other 'exotic physics' that invalidate my assumptions for the need for space colonization.

Otherwise They should be trying to grab as much energy as possible, for whatever is it they want to do (as should we) and we should see at least some galaxies going partially dark.

There was a paper I can't find that addressed this somewhat. It said that the energy stars burn is a small part (<1%?) of what they contain in total mass/energy, so it might make sense and harvest that energy later. (The paper did not explain a method for efficient matter/energy conversion but I think black holes can do that?)

That paper didn't fully convince me but it's one of very few arguments that tries to address what I think is the core issue. (At least a few species will want as much energy as they can get.)

>I mean, on one's own time, this seems like rather a good thing to do.

This is an interesting example of Conway's Law. If I hire a contractor for something, I'll want them to just import something that works, not try to explore things deeply. If I have a long term employee or cofounder, I'll want to encourage that experimentation and growth.

Most companies don't hire a second supervisor to watch their drivers. I don't think that's a reasonable standard for criminal negligence.

I do think civil liability is appropriate, and uber Settled for $9.7 Million. (it looks like the family is also suing the city and state.) https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2019/03/19/...

>I’m no longer convinced OT - and all the work I’ve done on it - will still be around. I feel really sad about that.

Don't be sad. What you did was a huge inspiration to me and I think a lot of people. It showed the possibilities even if it wasn't "optimal".

Commenting here in hope you'll see it. I skim to read most things, I only completed reading this article because I noticed 'I worked on Google Wave'.

I think it's worth considering the hypothesis that neurons work because they have been evolving towards memristor like behavior.

I did not downvote, but this is a low quality comment.

There is a distinction in journalism between protecting a source and revealing the object of a story.

I still disapprove of NYT doxing him.

>It's really hard IMO to get communicable science out of talk therapy because there are so many variables and it is extremely subjective and personal. The whole point is to help a patient navigate their own issues.

Eliza did this for some people decades ago. An app with GTP-3 could do a lot if it could navigate the legal and ethical issues.

Why is it more bold than the other way around?

I'm starting to lean more towards a consciousness-first idealism.

I don't think it's less mechanistic to say that the second copy creates a second entity.

Why do you think that the thinking and feeling is tied to the original body?

Possibly this: https://www.vox.com/2017/8/20/16167870/aclu-hate-speech-nazi...

An entity might have a reaction to the destruction of their original body, but if the transport is done as a single step there is only 1 conscious entity, and they survive.

>You're really talking about (at best) a new instantiation of the identical consciousness in a new body. That's not the original consciousness moving, that's a new (identical) consciousness coming to life.

This is making a lot of assumptions about how consciousness works. If I make a copy of a book the story doesn't move, but it is now in two places. If I destroy the original book the story isn't lost. I think experience might be more like that. Multiple copies of the same information system will all only have one subjective experience.

Yes if you run two versions they will diverge and the question is much more complicated. But if there is one moment of copy/destruction or you're scanning and then simulating/rebuilding a frozen brain, then there's no point in time where a consciousness doesn't have a future version.

Do you have a reason to believe that the consciousness would stay in one place and be destroyed rather than be in both places, and then just one place again?

I don't think that consciousness has momentum.

We don't need evolution and death to redesign our future selves.

Evolution is massively inefficient as a design process, and gives no guarantees about what you get.

Personal immortality is the goal.

What's JavaScript? What's a browser?

Back up a moment, this is suggesting emailing a zip bomb[to yourself or an account you know will not open it.] I believe showing intent is a separate issue.

fyi [7] gave me a ? and floppy disk at first and I had to reload it.

>just magically get more expensive.

It would take magic. The markets for most basic necessities are reasonably efficient. There's no major monopoly on them and it's not that hard for anyone to enter the market.

Demo CD's would often feature shareware versions of software.

What parts of the chip do they burn off for the consumer version?

Find a big thrift store near a big university. Slightly old and decades old textbooks for $3.50 . Plus interesting books.

I'm trying to find the pattern in your bad examples. It's not morality, they're all luxuries? Would a gaming computer be bad?

UBI should incentivise other income and would still be available even to the wealthy. Some of the extra will go to industriousness, some will go to frivolousness, but would we expect anything different from general economic prosperity? I guess we need to find a control group that gets more money on their own?

New York state recommends masks for those age 70+ and those with compromised immune systems.

https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/home

Some furnace filters claim to filter viruses(e.g. filtrete 1500 and higher from 3M) and seem to still be available in stores/amazon. These should be repurposed for higher priority users. (Preferably with a better seal than this.)