jjaredsimpson

I dunno. I think the Cylons are clearly bad. Genocide, pursuit, enslavement. Sure they have a grievance. But the response was quite disproportionate.

If you restrict the scope to just human interaction on ships then you retrieve the good-bad spectrum. A caste system, a military dictatorship, black markets, etc.

But now you are lifting helium out the potential well of a gas giant instead of Earth's.

IIRC the pattern still arises even if you generate pseudo-primes randomly.

Those have better asymptotics but worse constants.

Why would the bandwidth be better? I don't see a difference between a Chromecast making network requests or my PC doing it.

Also casting your desktop is encoding the desktop. The quality is worse.

The only advantage is for casting content with no native support.

So the rules are there is a highlighted word above the bottom 4. Type a word you think is semantically related to that highlighted word. Then the game will sort all words by its relation function. If the word you supplied is in the highest 4 (sorts to the bottom 4) then it explodes and you get a new word near the top of the list.

The words in the box are irrelevant once you explode a word because they are sorted by the old semantic relationship.

The highlighted word is light blue and all the other words are a medium grey. That's why I thought you might have a vision issue.

Are you color vision impaired? Because I had no trouble distinguishing the words even as they moved?

This might be an accessibility issue?

I'm not sure this is a counter example. It sounds to me like you are learning faster by unifying 2 streams of information. You read the music notes and you listen to the performance.

How would you perform just studying sheet music the night before and not playing at all.

But that's the point of basic research, no?

Minds are things that function in a physical universe. At some point in the future there will be a description of function, followed by a plan for modification or augmentation of existing minds, as well as bottom up design of new minds.

All minds are matter performing some computation. Molecules move around and change in time. In concert with this physical process, subjective experience takes place. There will come a time when physical systems are designed with the goal of creating a particular form of subjective experience.

I didn't make an argument saying that the way it is, is the way it should be. I just said it is the way it is for reasonable reasons and I don't see how this new way could gain traction. Pushing up hill isn't a great strategy.

Every woman I've ever been with has already been on BC, this is the same for all my guy friends. It's never something I've ever had to consider.

I think the article doesn't bother separating real motivations from stated motivations.

People want to have sex without consequences. That happens either in committed relationships or hookups. This gel does nothing for people who just want to hookup because of the risk of STDs. So you still have to use a condom anyway so why get the gel injection?

In committed relationships I could see it working. But committed relationships don't just spring up from nowhere. People who become committed probably started out doing this thing called dating where they tried to meet and sleep with people before settling down.

So women will use BC in both phases because it's the path of least resistance. I could see this working best as an alternative to vasectomy for a couple that is done having kids. But not as a replacement for condoms or female hormonal BC.

Article version of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuIlsN32WaE

And yet I spend a summer immersed in Emacs and the thing I miss most is the navigation commands and incremental search.

It's not premature in my opinion.

I don't follow what this hypothetical atan3 implements?

All triangles are 2d. Using atan2 to find the angle between 3d vectors would require projection onto an orthonormal basis.

atan2 requires this even in 2d, we just assume the natural basis and assume the other vector is x hat.

Dot product avoids all this in any dimension.

We can't only experiment with structures and tools that have only upside positive consequences.

The existence of a bad outcome is something to be avoided and guarded against, but I don't see why any possible tool which has a potential to be abused should be avoided.

Bad governments will do bad things. I'm talking about how surveillance could be a useful tool in designing society as a counter to anonymous speech.

Surveillance isn't a good or evil unto itself. That's all I'm saying. It's a tool. I think it could be used to nudge behavior toward better global outcomes. I'm not wedded to the idea that everyone nearly everywhere should feel free saying anything free from consequences. Making speech accountable and attributable could be good.

Anonymity paired with speech is a new modern invention which didn't always exist. I don't this it is necessarily true that that kinds of speech is always for the ultimate good.

I'm fine with societies experimenting with more surveillance with the aim of improving people's behavior. It just seems like the modern version of sitting around a fire face to face and not being an asshole.

I looked at the scroll thumb after the first two paragraphs when I saw a long list of disclaimers and was disappointed that I hadn't read anything useful yet. I closed the tab.

I get that I'm not the audience, but still this conversation style irks me. It just seems like noise.

edit: To be constructive instead of just complaining. I'd like articles this long to have a Table of Contents. I can't skim this article because there are too many pictures. So I have no way to summarize the content and find something useful.

I've seen rates of supernova for the milky way as 1 per century. So that's 1 per 10^13 star-years.

With 10^22 stars in the observable universe distributed uniformly we would expect something like 10^9 stars to supernova this year.

But we have to consider the speed of light. So what we are really asking is something like what is the probability that light will arrive at Earth in some interval from a supernova.

I'd imagine this is some integral over spherical shells receding into the distant past where there is some function defined on the shell which tracks stellar density as well as supernova probability. Beyond my expertise to even attempt napkin math.

It does default to center of Earth. However even if the default wasn't center of the Earth, that couldn't alter the apparent size of the Earth from the perspective of the Roadster. It would've altered the parallax.

Twice as large. The angle was subtending the radius of the Earth not the diameter.

Not accounting for position on the surface of the earth could introduce as much as 0.45 degrees of error in the apparent position for an object 500000 miles away. This is same as the apparent diameter of the moon for a reference.

These are the same people who want "intuitive" understanding of fundamentally mathematical subjects. Anytime I see a title, "X without math," I just see "X without X."

Intuition isn't understanding and ignorance isn't expedience. I think your choice of the word craft really homes in on what we are supposed to be doing. Building things well with craft. There is a place for duct tape and wire, but the craft of software matters.

But this is just a blip. When Pascal GPUs first showed up gtx 980ti where going on ebay for <300.

Markets are markets.

I don't understand this tendency to promote subjective experience from a process occurring in a physical universe to some property which constrains the universe and knowledge itself.

I prefer to believe the universe exists and whatever is possible is synonymous with being physical law. Conscious subjective experience is one of those phenomena not excluded by physical law.

But then this article claims and you also seems to claim something like:

> But what if somewhere else some consciousness has intuitive experiences about numbers which differ from our intuitive experiences.

I don't see why minds with intuitions creates any burden for numbers. From my perspective Mathematics is at bottom a game of string manipulation. Interpretations of those strings often can be applied to understand/predict/manipulate the physical universe. But the only real thing is the universe itself not the subjective interpretations in the minds.

The minds are real, obviously, they exist in the universe. Integers are an interpretation of a particular string. Suppose some other mind is incapable of an intuitive understanding an interpretation that we as humans have; I don't see how the "integers" could possibly be affected.

None of us are concerned that dogs don't understand math. Why we be concerned about the minds of aliens and what they find intuitive?

10 years ago I would routinely go to facebook and see friends saying what they were planning to do and make plans with them. Facebook served a real purpose in college (we got it my junior year iirc).

Now its nearly all trash. People bitching, posting memes, sharing slideshows, etc. The only thing I go there for is 1 specific local group and even that is pointless because there is a discord.

Facebook is essentially dead to me, and certainly dead to all my younger cousins 15-19 yos. I feel like I must be missing something, because I have no idea why anyone would visit. It's so negative and low quality.

So you are going to time the market? Why do you believe you can do this better than others?

I don't think people are choosing to pay a premium in favor of lower density. Incumbent land holders using local zoning laws to prevent density to maintain their wealth.

Also using the phrase overpopulated ant farms isn't useful or accurate.