815 karma · joined September 17, 2007
* Low friction, nothing to install, near instant feedback.
* Fun starting at simple shapes, gradients, distortions, all the way to absurdly good looking rendering.
I did have that experience of growing up with fun programming, for me shader programming brings that back.
I also think that an internal voice that doesn't get conscious awareness is likely to become a process that doesn't present as voice. So it's not like someone can just pay more attention and hear something, because it stopped talking a long time ago.
General construction kit for real world applications. In theory you could take a machine apart and use the beams for some other machine. A smaller kit could build any of the machine designs as needed.
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Sti...
I think this is actually the right approach. Some 'balancing' algorithm would have to make assumptions about what's normal, then then the excluded participants wouldn't even show up in the research data.
Because evolutionary pressures on governments produce stability and power instead of 'goodness of people', I suspect any random system that sounds remotely sensible would probably be superior to anything we have now. If we actually designed something that took into account new knowledge and technology, we could do much better.
Expectation of future profits is equivalent to belief that markets are inefficient. (Which of course they often are.) Open source economic planning could yield massive economic gains and doesn't require centralized power or use of force. (Pacifist governance is one of those unexplored spaces) An open public ledger would allow for resource allocation and incentivizing work without needing a monetization strategy.
If we track and account for externalities doing a good thing funds itself. You don't need a way to take money from the people you're helping. This also disincentivizes negative externalities.
As an example of how bad things are: We still debate on natural language forums instead of using structured arguments that link to common datasets and simulations. These comments get 'points' instead of bayesian probabilities, and there's no way to filter or rescore anything based on it's epistemological support or new data.
Doing so through income tax rates is muddling the issues. The rich would hire dieticians and trainers just to save money. If public health is actually a priority, those kinds of services would be subsidized.
I agree with it, but it would disrupt a whole industry.
Every instance of funding open software and free content disproves this.
The valuable thing is the creation of IP. If you want IP pay for its creation. The market can do that.
It's quite normal for people to be embarrassed when their parents show baby pictures, especially if it involves nudity. It's transplanting the childish innocence onto the person's social present.
His parent's consent does not negate the harm done, possibly the opposite.
-An unemployed STEM
(Each time Go or Replay is clicked, Inform tries to translate the source text into a working story, and updates this report.)
Problem. The sentence 'This is a book' appears to say two things are the same - I am reading 'This' and 'book' as two different things, and therefore it makes no sense to say that one is the other: it would be like saying that 'John is Paul'. It would be all right if the second thing were the name of a kind, perhaps with properties: for instance 'Abbey Road is a lighted room' says that something called Abbey Road exists and that it is a 'room', which is a kind I know about, combined with a property called 'lighted' which I also know about.
Because of this problem, the source could not be translated into a working game. (Correct the source text to remove the difficulty and click on Go once again.)