iosystem

Someone could make a complaint with the registry if they see no changes after a period of time that's reasonable? I think it could be automated for many cases such as when domain squatters aren't even pointing their domains anywhere.

Unsure why you're ignoring the difference of unlocking an iPhone to access the data on the phone compared to accessing data on iCloud.

I think a lot of what you wrote are possible signs that programming isn't for you but it depends. What you listed is aimed at frontend work. Maybe you should be setting your goal somewhere else in programming. Especially if you have the learning resources for the frontend stuff but you're still failing to make progress with it. Although learning sometimes can be best at a job that's forcing you to make progress everyday. I personally don't think programming is for everyone and I think that some people just push themselves into the career for financial reasons. They're probably going to live a life of despair attached to them for it. Unless they eventually switch to management.

We grew up together and he's a programmer similar to me. I have been following AI for other aspects that make me believe what he explained is realistic. Also I did ask him for his thoughts on the ethics of it and he thinks the outcome is fine. I'm curious what your thoughts are concerning ethics if it's indeed happening.

No, friend wasn't able to show me evidence because of a reason equivalent to an NDA. I have no reason to distrust my friend. I'm confident what he's informing me is possible as well.

In academia we've lost multiple great programmers to the private sector because of the "Return to the Office" nonsense and even when the rule requires being at the office ~40% of the work week. The replacements being low paid foreigners on work permits and they're needing to be taught but we no longer have enough experienced programmers for the task. My impression is productivity lost isn't valuable enough unlike the political reason of why people need to drive into work everyday.

I'm curious how you chose both the font style and font size. I would've preferred something else for both is my first impression. Did you sample preferences from people? Very impressive project.

The just-world hypothesis or just-world fallacy is the cognitive bias that assumes that "people get what they deserve" – that actions will have morally fair and fitting consequences for the actor. For example, the assumptions that noble actions will eventually be rewarded and evil actions will eventually be punished fall under this hypothesis. In other words, the just-world hypothesis is the tendency to attribute consequences to—or expect consequences as the result of— either a universal force that restores moral balance or a universal connection between the nature of actions and their results. This belief generally implies the existence of cosmic justice, destiny, divine providence, desert, stability, and/or order. It is often associated with a variety of fundamental fallacies, especially in regard to rationalizing suffering on the grounds that the sufferers "deserve" it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

They found that people who have a strong tendency to believe in a just world also tend to be more religious, more authoritarian, more conservative, more likely to admire political leaders and existing social institutions, and more likely to have negative attitudes toward underprivileged groups.

Why do people believe in the just-world fallacy? The just-world theory (Lerner, 1980) assumes that people want to believe that they live in a world where good things happen to good people and bad things only to bad ones and where therefore everyone harvests what they sow (see also Furnham, 2003; Dalbert, 2009; Hafer and Sutton, 2016).Sep 25, 2017

Who believes in a just world? Believers in a just world have been found to be more religious, more authoritarian, and more oriented toward the internal control of reinforcements than nonbelievers. They are also more likely to admire political leaders and existing social institutions, and to have negative attitudes toward underprivileged groups.

I think people are acting unfair towards me if what you're asserting is the cause of the behaviour. Unless my interpretation and expression of a "pet hypotheses" was truly wrong of me to do. Since I don't think writing about one's pet hypotheses is making a claim in what would indeed warrant negative behaviour.

I'm not arguing against downvoting if someone believes what I did is actually against hackernews if it truly is? My edit expresses how I would be grateful for anyone informed in the research to explain if they obviously disagree enough to downvote me. They would've likely read what I've read anyhow on the fungi & Alzheimer's research.

I don't think we should discourage people from having a pet hypothesis if they're open about it. I seriously doubt that in academia most don't have their own pet hypothesis. I think the problem is when persons aren't open about whatever being their pet hypothesis and or even deliberately going out of bounds on what's acceptable based on their own pet hypothesis. As I said to another person that replied to me, you can google "fungi and Alzheimer's " to easily see the research in great detail. Maybe even visiting researchgate and doing the same. Also thanks for replying because I do have family members that have it.

I've been reading research on Alzheimer's from the start of when I became informed about my family members having it. There's multiple approaches that research is going over of course. Some is on fungi like what my comment asserts. If you do a quick google search you can read about it in great detail.

My pet hypothesis is that Alzheimer's is the effect of fungi on the body. I think depending upon genetics we have a certain resistance and as we age it weakens. Possibly early onset Alzheimer's could be any factor of exposure levels throughout one's life and or from genetics possibly weakening the resistance of the body towards fungi. While the type of dementia that most elderly develop is possibly the outcome of long-haul exposure to fungi. I've already read some research between fungi and Alzheimer's but not all. I'm just someone who has/had family members with the illness and I'm curious about it. edit: whoever downvotes me, please reply because I'm very curious on if you're downvoting for any specific reason from research that makes you highly doubt my pet hypothesis.

> We just don't see the script.

True.

> One of the primal driving forces behind creating AI is to have slaves with high intelligence doing work no one else would 24+/7+.

True

> I assume you'd be against using animal labour as they would be suffering.

Animals doing labour while suffering != animals doing labour while not suffering.

> But would you say the same about tractors? Going by the logic in that comment, we should nuke ourselves and try to blow up the Sun for good measure to reduce suffering.

I think you should read again what I wrote and consider if you're being illogical towards what I wrote. The all or nothing thought of yours, isn't a gotcha (if perfectionism isn't obtainable) and it doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge the best universe while striving towards one of the least total suffering possible for us while being able to enjoy life.

I genuinely question if consciousness is just an illusion if everything is just cause and effect. Similar, awareness is just a word used for human expression from one human to another for claiming we’re not just navigating a script like a computer but are we really aware or conscious if everything is just cause and effect? I assume AI will be good enough as humans before we understand the human brain in comparison to AI and understanding to me is the meaningful distinction. I do think we should care that all entities never suffer regardless if they don’t have the human label. We should consider that all energy in the universe not suffering is the best universe.

Majority of millennials on social media sites like reddit share the same thoughts as that person. To be more specific everyone that isn't making six figures in a career like tech. I have anxiety about the resentment of my peers and I think the riots we've seen in the US non-related to the housing crisis have been bad but likely nothing compared to what's to come. The elephant in the room is that therapy isn't going to cut it and especially when almost all of young adults entering into the timeline of entry-homeownership years realize it's impossible while having flashbacks of how much easier it was for their parents while comparing homes on the market to what they lived in during childhood years. I think the older generation is naive to think that everyone is just going to adapt to apartment living without extreme resentment and torching things down. Even my tech colleague millennials are trying to prepare for what their peers are likely to do.

I feel sad for the author because I think he was exploited by the people he references that work for the United States government. Although I can only speculate on that part.

The author should understand the difference between AI and the human brain. We're actually capable of understanding how the code works for AI built by humans. Unlike the human brain where we're still unable to grasp such understanding and although we have theories it still isn't comparable to knowing what's happening with AI. Until that's known the author won't have much of a legal argument concerning it being possibly sentient. Author will just be noted for speculation.

I think "non-psuedo-random" is definitely better for someone approaching the topic from a beginner mindset. It possibly hints that something non-psuedo-random can become psuedo-random depending on how advanced scientific understanding of nature becomes.

I think the phrase "true random" is confusing. The author did highlight the difference well between the two. I still wish there was a better phrase for techniques generating randomness that are currently better than techniques generating pseudo-randomness.

I thought AMD succeeded because they managed to get Jim Keller and other great engineers? Unsure why you're placing your hope on a CEO.

As someone that works as one. I would recommend NOT being a research software engineer if you value your health and haven't obtained financial freedom. Cost of living is always increasing and the lower pay isn't worth it. The work is more stressful as well because proper software development isn't respected. Previously worked at FANG.