nakedneuron

I'm expecting mice will do the job. Why else is research centered about them?

Carbon in the form of carbon dioxide as raw material is literally instantly available and the resulting "composite" is lightweight. This is not to say nature always considers recycling beforehand. Nature needed to invent fungi to break up this carbon dump. Carbon era is named thanks to this fact. And it's tempting to think nature "came up" with humankind to make the humongous carbon dump of the carbon era useful once again.

Glad you didn't!

There is visidata. It's a TUI and still has rough edges, but it could develop into what you're envisioning.

I know little of U.S. foreign policy, but here's my unoriginal take. Those conflicts the U.S. engage in are the test beds for its military industry. Wheels need to spin and shrinking the industry is not an option. What's at stake is deterrence, thus yes survival, and I think it works quite well for them. In regards to "fraud".. you mean corruption.. or defunct machinery?.. in the former case I'd say it's a bonus for standing by.

Thanks for standing by.. :)

Thanks for pointing out, I see now what you meant. Also thanks for sharing the Wiki article.. it was a difficult read with, I think, sometimes overly simplified examples that to this day seem to be mere hypotheses. But it also provided some valuable insights.. It's one of those rare reads where afterwards you see it everywhere.

Both are fair points. Still, a table - or chair - is/was one of thousands of options to choose. So you might be right that good examples tend to be reproduced. Question remains why it would be a good example to begin with.

Personally I think at some point such choice became baked in into the concept of physical existence because people think in pictures and physical existence in itself is such an abstract thing. The choice of furniture however is kind of hilarious.

Thanks for biting. But I'm also serious.

Some evidence that I'm not joking, two more or less prominent examples...

From Roger Penrose's "The road to reality", chapter 1.3 "Is Plato's mathematical world ‘real’?":

"I am aware that there will still be many readers who find difficulty with assigning any kind of actual existence to mathematical structures. Let me make the request of such readers that they merely broaden their notion of what the term ‘existence’ can mean to them. The mathematical forms of Plato’s world clearly do not have the same kind of existence as do ordinary physical objects such as tables and chairs. They do not have spatial locations; nor do they exist in time."

"Do Chairs Exist?" by Vsauce, ~11M views: https://youtu.be/fXW-QjBsruE

"How" you ask.. I think we need to trace back when philosophers started to hit on that meme. I think the "multi-thousand-year furniture lobbyists" started to jump on the bandwagon from there and things co-evolved after that. I am determined to solve that humandkind-old mystery.

Could you point to the example you mentioned, I couldn't find it.

I don't mind at all. Thanks for sharing, it looks like a very interesting read!

While this is true, there are billions of convenient examples everybody knows. Also there are things that have a lot less variables than a table.

I'm not convinced. (I don't thing so.)

Has anybody made the same observation? :

Philosophy seems to be concerned with furniture a lot. I'm compiling a list of examples I encountered where in a philosophical (sometimes not philosophical) context someone brings up the table (rarer so the chair) as an instance of a physical thing. I started compiling this list when I was convinced this is a thing.

Further examples (book citations, links) greatly encouraged if you can contribute. My list is still small but only because I was so late to take action.

I have an idea of why this is. But I want to corroborate my empiric base before going to the greater public with this.

I asked ChatGPT and it came up with these cases of deception strategies in nature (I wasn't excluding mankind, it thinks man, and probably itself doesn't belong there):

Mimicry/false signaling/bluffing (look more dangerous, look inpalatable, distract attention, attract prey), camouflage (avoid being preyed), brood paratism (cokoos get parenting for free).

None of them involve deceiving partners into pretending higher level of fitness.

Thinking about this it becomes a little clearer why this is.

When you're buying a sofa the seller usually doesn't buy a sofa made by you. So there is an assymmetry. The sofa dealer not only monopolizes most information about the deal (factual quality, costs; competitors are shared information). Also, the dealer can influence what you think. Economies of scale at play both in advertising and production.

Secondly, only if those two sofas you exchanged were to be used to produce the next generation of sofas and only if those newly merged sofa designs would be the sole base of contemporary sofa design would this comparison hold.

Then it becomes clear that if both parties engage in deceiving each other the species as the hypthetical owner of all evolving sofa designs must lose.

I don't see the connection to intentionally banking on lower quality across the board here.

I think immediacy is key here. A bad sofa that falls apart after five years of use is a delayed loss (that fallacy has to have be discovered already). A small investment, prospects of gambling it and the inability to see through seem to play a role so lottery (poor people's tax) comes to mind.

> pace of fraud

Isn't it if the stakes are high more eyes are watching and thus quality control works (better)? I'm at a loss for scenarios that would raise the bar for the sofa game. A shabby sofa could signal something about the owner that might be indirectly relevant to the mating success. But on the other hand there seems to be a niche for that market where low quality fits quite well.

Quality of care is distinct from fitness (gene quality if you will). It seems like offspring without much care is more needy of fitness than K-strategists.

Quality (or the lack thereof) as a hidden property seems to be a man-made artifact. Are there any examples in nature (excluding mankind) coming up with this? Evolution doesn't seem to choose this path. Why do we?

Hooray to sound joins, I guess.

"Universe 25 Mouse Experiment" by J. Calhoun shows this too.

https://youtu.be/7ReBJfxHjFU

Key sentences (1:30): "Young ones found themselves born in a world with far more mice than meaningful social roles. Males faced a lot of competitors to defend their territory against. Many found that so stressful they gave up. Normal discourse within the community broke down and with it the ability of mice to form social bonds."

Very nicely illustrated.

> the model showed neurons with tendrils that formed knots around themselves

I wonder if this plays into the mechanism of epilepsy. Self-arousal...?

Anybody qualified to comment on?

We need to rethink the foundations.

Insights about fascia

Interesting phenomenon. Seems to be a thing. I guess it's because how memory is encoded spatially and in the middle of changing places there would either be no clear signal due to multiple neuron parties firing or the brain is busy with context change in that transition and never builds strong memories of crossing a particular doorway.

Tell me about the "ten k for the mind", please.

I'm a big fan.

Will never touch Latex again, so much inconsisteny, so much pain. Let alone doing (and memorizing) simple things like page setup and setting the font size to the point. In Typst it's just simple and efficient, and I even don't need to explain anything of the following code (except maybe "leading" which is spacing between lines, "tracking" is space between characters, "spacing" is space bewteen words):

#set page( paper: "a4", margin: (x: 2.0cm, y: 2.5cm) )

#set text( font: "Noto Sans", size: 4em, weight: "regular", fill: black, tracking: 0.2pt, spacing: 115% )

#set par( justify: false, leading: 1.75em, )

See all options... https://typst.app/docs/reference/text/text/ https://typst.app/docs/reference/layout/page/ https://typst.app/docs/reference/layout/par/

The documentation is very thorough and kind of.. flawless.

The two theses of the founders (linked in thread, search tu-berlin.de) are an interesting read and show how they resolved the complexity of typography into simplicity and efficiency.

Using plugins is easy (you can write you own too), just add a line (e.g. #import "@preview/codetastic:0.2.2"), it will download the plugin when compiling (you can also clone the git repo and reference it locally).

Try to compile to pdf:

#import "@preview/codetastic:0.2.2" #box(codetastic.qrcode("https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38354422"))

typst compile filename.typ

The plugins repository (https://typst.app/docs/packages/) is filling rapidly and has already some cool ones like codelst (show codeblocks, highlight lines and reference them), codetastic (generate ean + qr-codes) and showybox (beautiful boxes whose style can be stremalined across a whole document easily). And they only started going public early this year... Not to say that the language itself isn't super powerful but you can literally program qr-code-generation in typst (which is what the plugin author did).

Beautiful... #box(fill: gradient.linear(..color.map.rainbow))[Typst rocks.]

Matthew Butterick who created Pollen approves too: https://forums.matthewbutterick.com/t/typst-another-typesett...

It's still fresh (like a warm apple pie). Though, I'm astounded how much depth is already in there.

Should use Typst, it's really the best out there at the moment.

Laurenz Mädje (the other founder) did too:

https://www.user.tu-berlin.de/laurmaedje/programmable-markup...