mfoy_

Very interesting read!

"it turns out a war crime is any war crime that you can condemn them for but they can’t condemn us for"

I'm confused, isn't "Gamergate" like "Watergate"? How can you be on Gamergate's "side"?

That's like... are you on Watergate's side?

Does that make sense? The logic is that woolly mammoths would... am I reading this right? Tamp down the permafrost? Like, they'd literally just squish the ground on top of it to compact it and insulate the permafrost from rising temperatures? And they'd knock over trees... that's... that's the plan?

EDIT: Apparently, yes, that is seriously the idea. But the scale required to make a difference, and the cost to get to that scale boggles my mind. You can't just whip up one pack of mammoths and call it a success...

The Corporation Wars trilogy has some interesting ideas about what this could look like.

Chickens have this weird "IT'S BLEEDING. MURDER IT!" kinda vibe.

There's literally rose-tinted glasses you can glue onto their beaks so they can't really perceive red. This prevents them from pecking each-other to death.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_eyeglasses

Assuming AGI takes off, why not?

I agree we're not that close to complete automation. But one day we will be. What then?

Society needs to have some sort of plan in place for people when there are too few, too difficult jobs left.

Regardless on your feelings about "socialism", you have to ask yourself: What will happen when automation comes for more and more jobs?

If the means of production are all automated, what does that mean for our society? Do we rail against automation in order to retain traditional jobs? How would that be materially different from Keynes' idea of economic stimulus by making jobs to dig holes and them in again?

Yeah, when I first started playing around with node I accidentally published one of my "hello world"-like apps to NPM's public registry. There was definitely no warning or indication of the severity of the action I was undertaking.

It's an easy mistake to make. What is concerning is that the bank didn't notice for three years... I feel like that should have been caught a lot sooner.

I can't understate how bad changing "you'll be a Man, my son" to "you'll be an Adult, my child" would be.

It would be like, in the pursuit of lowering your sodium intake, making bread without salt. Is it healthier? Maybe. What does it taste like now? Cardboard.

I'll play the historical context card here. At the time the poem was written, that language perfectly evoked the image the author was going for.

I think it's very possible to read the last few lines in a non-gendered light. You have to want it to be misogynistic in order to interpret it as such.

There's a perception among management that they need to remain competitive. The IT service truly isn't a oligopoly like telcos are. My company hasn't increased rates in over 4 years out of fear that we would lose business even though we have more business than we have the resources to handle.

Reminds me of part of that poem by Kipling...

  "If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster

    And treat those two impostors just the same;

  If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken

    Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

  Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,

    And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:"

(I highly recommend reading the whole thing. Not that long.) https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46473/if---

Yes, but filing a police report against a client isn't good for business.

I harness that mindset-spillover by playing board games as a hobby.

> my ex as one of the answers. This one baffled me because we never lived together and never had a bank account or loan together

Yikes. Where did they get that from? I wonder if they also collected tons of info from FaceBook like it seems everyone else has.

Or maybe it's a neat, built-in, self-destruct sequence for the law. i.e. The law is only valid if we're confident it's his signature. As soon as digital signatures are proven insecure, we can no longer be certain the act was signed, therefore it's not law.

Probably not the case, and just a PR gimmick, but still. I like to dream. :)

Can someone delegate other users to act as "moderators" in the comment section of their channel's videos?

If not, it's like saying you can run a forum, but you have to moderate the whole thing yourself.

Probably an emotional thing, "set in stone", a sense of permanency, etc.

Generally speaking submissions should just match the <title> of the page... so if you want, write a blog post about it, then submit the blog post?

It's more like "trying to kickstart the network effect".

It's kind of like how dating services buy and sell portfolios of user accounts so that they can pre-seed their services with apparent potential matches, thus attracting real users who will (hopefully) become the real userbase.

It is not obvious or tautological that removing a bad employee is more valuable than acquiring a superb employee.

Actually I think it's quite possibly the worst definition of consciousness I've ever seen.

At best (assuming conscious cannot be doubted) it's like saying "Cars are those things which move fast". In the sense that it describes one property of cars, or consciousness, but not a unique property. Other things move fast, not just cars, other things could be beyond doubt than just consciousness.

At worst (assuming consciousness can be doubted) it's like saying "Cars are those things which flap around", which is utterly nonsense, and unhelpful. Plenty of things "flap around", but cars don't...

My point is, if you don't already have a strong preconception of what "consciousness" is, that definition is worse than no definition at all.

So as soon as you start questioning your own consciousness you are immediately no longer considered "conscious"...

So using this definition of consciousness, and looking at Plato's most famous quote: The unexamined life... is apparently the only conscious one. Huh.

If I doubt you are conscious, are you then, by definition, not conscious?

Right, the title makes a claim, and their conclusion is that the opposite claim has failed to meet its burden of proof...

Thinking that "because something has not met its burden of proof means that the opposite must be true" is a fallacy.

Speaking as a consultant, that introduces a new host of headaches and problems...

There was a actually a meta-game of where you'd (1) take a horrible quote, (2) mis-attribute it to Carl Sagan or Neil deGrasse Tyson or Stephen Hawking, (3) put it on an image of space and (4) post it to r/atheism to see how many up-votes it got.

It was a very easy game.

Check out his sequel: https://www.ynharari.com/book/homo-deus/