l33t233372

People shooting themselves in the head often reflexively pull the trigger twice.

Do you suppose the elite hit squad that came to kill him simply added an extra bullet by mistake?

Funding an anti-communist death squad that also sells drugs isn’t exactly the same as bringing crack to the hood.

To wit, the study was run my Harvard psychologists, not CIA.

Step one, then, is to have something interesting to say.

Unfortunately it isn’t generally the case that people have something interesting to write at length about, and even more rarely do they have something interesting to say about the specific topic assigned.

The term deep state was first used popularly far after these things were made public.

I think we’re saying the same thing. Are we not?

> The fact that the US needs to use military force is a failure of policy.

And a million realists(in the technical sense that IR people use the word) cried out in terror at once.

Peaceful just has to be a continuum in order for us to make any sense of a theory of peace.

Certainly wars between great powers and much smaller countries are more peaceful than near-peer wars.

The PSI system was pretty cool in my opinion. It was a very neat algorithm for obtaining information about set intersection in a privacy preserving way.

I’m not sure what you mean about HN identifying this. Aren’t HN’s points public?

I know a very early version of chatGPT could be busted by asking it to write its input backwards and talk about it

HN reinvents the “text book.”

One problem is that often science says nothing about policy.

_Science_ doesn’t say we should ban fossil fuels, but it does make predictions about what will happen if we continue to use them at the current rate.

It’s not science denial to be against the policy.

> It would permanently have assigned its own segment of the global system address space

We’ve been moving away from this for security reasons with ASLR and position independent executables.

Fixed targets are dangerous for security reasons.

Yes let me just rip the keyboard I carry with me out of my back pocket.

It’s like the Ohio of Europe

I highly doubt many Oculus devices were sold that were used 0 times.

They say their model works for a hypothetical privacy preserving camera that masks 90% of the pixels.

I’m not sure there’s much more to it; I think you’re reading too far into it. It shows the power of their model and possible applications towards privacy.

It’s not a stance that that hypothetical camera is actually great for privacy.

Not to disagree with infallible thousands of years old advice, but surely resources are in far shorter supply than potential attacks, so we have to prioritize and filter.

I bet you could have gotten far with a reply to the effect of “a job.”

As someone with graduate level math experience and many friends in mathematics grad school, I know what you mean, but it definitely depends on your idea of fun.

You have to enjoy bashing your head against a problem for a dozen hours. Or to be more precise, you have to enjoy the feeling of solving such a hard problem sufficiently much to find math fun.

Is it it even technically for the model to know it’s hallucinating?

I was referring to the instantiation of a TM as having a one sided tape.

I think my autocorrect got the better of me there!

It’s unclear to me why restricting ourselves to that model is useful here

I’ve never seen “asymptomatic density” referred to as “asymptomatic probability.”

Anyways, if anyone is interested is a more complete survey of similarly flavored computability/density results, this paper is good: https://faculty.math.illinois.edu/~jockusch/DensityCE_JML.pd...

There is even some pure combinatorics involved, for example I remember lemma 6.7 from my combinatorics class back in undergrad

There is no such notion of “undefined memory region” for a Turing Machine

It’s not to test if X works, it’s to test if X has any chance of working.

Wars of defense are entirely different in my opinion.

I’m not sure I agree. Can you be more precise about what you mean by repeating? If you mean “contains an infinite arithmetic progression” then surely this is not true.

Could you also be more precise about what you mean by true randomness?