kbrkbr

I don't find it so surprising, because I can recollect sounds, voices, songs. The same thing, another sense.

So it's probably like hearing "inner" sounds, just with motion pictures.

I wonder if there are also sound aphantasts, but it's highly likely.

Different to the case described at the beginning of the article I have lots of memories. But they are stories of what happened, not movies.

A detective board inspired by https://github.com/Fungeey/detectiveboard.

I was looking for one on the internet.

The mentioned one is great, and I love the features. It uses node however, is a bit heavy and has dependencies. I am afraid of node after all the security incidents we had recently.

This one is just JS + HTML on one page. No tracking, no cookies, no data send over the internet.

Why might I (and you) need a detective board?

Let me quote the README:

"For me it is a simple way of wandering around thoughts that are naturally interconnected, but appear in a sequential fashion.

A detective board appears to give you a way of layering though upon thought, grouping them, reflecting on them as they are layed and layered out before you without vanishing and fleeting into each other and then working with the grouped and reflected whole.

I find it immensely useful for learning, analyzing, explaining, structuring problems and a lot of other related mental activities.

The option to use images is additionally helpful for me, as I can barely see anything with imagination (I am largely an aphantast). So I can keep visual clues next to my discursive thoughts."

Features:

- Double-click to create a note.

- Right-click and drag to connect pins with threads.

- Paste images with Ctrl + V.

- Scroll to zoom.

- Ctrl + Click to delete.

Save / Load buttons for persistence.

Try it here in Github pages: https://stefankober.github.io/detective-board/

Comments and suggestion welcome!

Right? All these "features", but they don't get the very basic stuff right a lot of times. User input is very very important for the user.

On iPhone swipe keyboard something that feels like a random generator replaces not only the word you swipe, but the word before, and in 2/3rds of cases with random nonsense pairs.

And you can't turn it off without turning off the similar word proposals you definitely want.

It's a strange design decision and I think the implementation is not up to the task.

I'm not staying cause I like it, but because I dislike the other options more.

It still can be true that the uptime is better, or am I overlooking something?

If it's the right numbers (called measurement data) and the right excel sheet pushing (called running a validated model) that is exactly the way you can make these claims. Overall it's called the scientific method.

And where are they?

I think it's rather the choice we are given at this moment in history. But I may be wrong.

If you abstract away any other problems and boil it down to environment, health and work protections on the one hand, and restriction of unlimited immigration from countries with very different sets of values no matter the sociological developments that will likely follow you can only choose one.

I just tried to summarize what we hear and see from voters in analyses as fairly as I could, not present my own opinion. If that did not work out, let me know.

But in this case you choose the one problem that appears bigger or makes you more angry probably.

I could not agree more. I am on my second try to master mathematics (30 years after the first), and I can see, understand and appreciate mathematics mainly from the constructive standpoint.

Nothing wrong with classical mathematics, as also used in this roadmap. Having axioms and drawing logical conclusions or searching proof does just not click for me.

Give me 0: N and suc: N -> N and I see how to construct stuff. Induction makes sense right away as a case distinction on those two constructors.

So you are doing the same as all of us: checking the quality of evidence best we can and then weighing it best we can.

But then somehow you feel the need to make your opinion and the opinion of the people that somehow align with you (or vice versa) somehow more objective or ethically better by calling it "honest", or best aligned with the evidence (as if people could not disagree on the quality of evidence, or take into account other things) or the like.

That's the part I wholeheartedly disagree with you. We're all blind men touching an elephant.

But Hamas is not?

So what you mean by "honest" is "they believe the same things as facts like I do, and draw the same conclusions?"

Or put differently: "they have the same world view as I have?"

I am skeptical of any numbers from a war zone with a public relations war going on at the same time. This appears to be generally admitted, as witnessed by quotes as the long standing and cross cultural "the first casualty of war is truth." [1]

So I'm curious. How do you know the numbers are factual and they eye witnesses are what they say they are?

[1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2020/04/11/casualty/

> Their honest transparent, and vocal opinions

How do you know the opinions are honest? That strikes me as not easily assessable. What does it mean that an opinion is transparent?

What is phishing resistant MFA? - https://www.sans.org/blog/what-is-phishing-resistant-mfa

Try   [1]

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-breaking_space (see specifically the example section)

But here's the catch. If you do that in a lot of places, you'll have a lot of extra code to manage.

So your suggested approach does not seem to scale well.

I am sure that's what you mean, but I think it is important to state it explicitly every now and then:

> Defence in depth means you have more than one security control

that overlap. Having them strictly parallel is not defense in depth (e.g. on one door to the same room a dog, and on a different unconnected door a guard).

So you can't be bothered to read even the first sentence of the only reference gp uses before commenting with a request for deeper explanation?

Let me then quote the first sentence for you:

> ORDERS OF THE COURTS The list published on this page contains structurally copyright-infringing websites (SCIWs) for which a court has ordered a DNS block, together with the file number of the court decision.

Here is another view: some of them maybe do things to perform richness. And others are probably so bored that they just try new extreme things, but nothing fills that inner void. I can't get no satisfaction.

Or maybe not. I'll never know.

Here is another perspective:

> In every technology wave so far, we've disrupted many existing jobs. However we've also opened up new kinds of jobs

That may well be why these technologies were ultimately successful. Think of millions and millions being cast out.

They won't just go away. And they will probably not go down without a fight. "Don't buy AI-made, brother!", "Burn those effing machines!" It's far from unheard of in history.

Also: who will buy if no one has money anymore? What will the state do, when thus tax income goes down, while social welfare and policing costs go up?

There are other scenarios, too: everybody gets most stuff for free, because machines and AI's do most of the work. Working communism for the lower classes, while the super rich stay super rich (like in real existing socialism). I don't think it is a good scenario either. In the long run it will make humanity lazy and dumb.

In any case I think what might happen is not easy to guess, so many variables and nth-order effects. When large systems must seek a new equilibrium all bets are usually off.

I hope he did not say it _to_ the unconscious. I count three negations there...

I find LLMs incredibly useful for some very specific cases: summarizing text for example. Even dialogues to learn something.

Now there are n use cases (10 <= n <= 50?). There is no real moat.

What we don't know is, if there will be significant advances, and how useful they will be. But we also don't know that for any other area.

What we do know however is that breakthroughs are rare.

Everybody is now in the hype train. AI here, AI there. I find most of it just annoying.

My guess is this that a reckoning is more probable than the new super feature.

Here is an example of the mix-up (from a bit above):

> The greatest values, and change in values comes just before the bubble bursts.

This seems to be talking about the mathematical model. Then you go on:

> In fact, tulips were most valuable, and those values were climbing at the highest rate before the tulip bubble burst.

That seems a jump to the modeled. And you speak of the modeled as if it was the model.

And by the way, if this graph [1] is correct, then what you say is also false. The valuations do not rise exponentially, but slow before the bubble bursts, very visibly. This is also true for the 2008 housing bubble in the local index [2].

I think that shows quite well that there are two layers. And there is the question of the fit between them. Having seen those two graphs I think I'd rather expect reduction in the rate of change of valuation shortly before the bubble bursts. That model appears to fit better what I'd expect in economical bubbles (but not in soap bubbles), namely a growing sense of risk that counteracts the fomo.

[1] image Tulip Price Index 1636-37 here https://www.historydefined.net/how-did-tulips-create-the-wor... [2] https://wolfstreet.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/US-Housing...

There are people who disagree. Here is one compilation of theorems that are obvious and false:

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/820686/obvious-theo...

Not at all. I was just implying that the process definition was a bit vague. Next time I'll state it clearly.

But I think I should be giving a reply also to the content of what you say. That's only fair after you took so much time explaining.

I think you conflate two questions in your statement: the question of what can be said about a function that is up to a point exponential and growing, and after that point decaying in an unspecified manner, but so that this point is a local maximum. And secondly the question if this is a good/the only/the best model for valuations in what is called an investment bubble that then bursts.

This conflation of model and modeled makes it hard for me to assess the argument, because I need to take these layers apart, and that involves guess work.

Look, neither did I say there are no mathematical certainties, nor did I anywhere argue about the content of what you said.

The only thing I said is: there are probably no _obvious_ mathematical certainties in reply to what you said, as the history of mathematics shows with plenty of examples.

But it's already too much ink spilled for such a little difference.

I reckon now that you use words like "obvious" (or "categorically" in the last reply [1]) as markers of belief strength or something. That's fine, many people do it.

[1] related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36808333

I see that. I just have a hard time seeing how it is related to my question. Euclidean geometry was an "obvious mathematical certainty". Until it wasn't, and we learned that there are no "obvious mathematical certainties".

So I wanted to understand what you mean by this concept.

But we can leave it. It's not important. No harm meant.

> I just applied some stuff that’s been known for a long time in a different context.

I tried this, and screamed "Goal!!!!" on a golf course when the ball went in the hole. Did not work as expected. Lost my membership.

But maybe I applied it wrong.

Look, I asked

>> obvious mathematical certainty

> You mean like euclidean geometry

To which you reply stuff about values and bubble bursts.

What you said may or may not be true. But it's hard for me to tell how it is related to what I asked.