nebulousthree

I think what they mean by "resolve this" is "make it error-free". Your claim that "it isn't necessary to show every permutation for it to solve one it hasn't seen before" doesn't really contradict their point.

For puzzles whose entire permutation space is semantically similar enough, your claim is likely true. But for puzzles whose permutations can involve more "human" semantic manipulations, there is likely a much higher risk of failure.

Try selling socialism to Americans...that's why.

The deciding factor for that next-day sluggishness, in my experience, has been whether or not I fall asleep while still noticeably under its influence. If you wait it out and then sleep near the end of the come-down, you may avoid it entirely. But then, I never use it to sleep, so YMMV.

Yes, sorry for the lack of clarity. I mean in the same way that infinity+1 > infinity is a trivial difference and only technically true.

Your description of your experience with cannabis is telling. If you're frustrated with not being able to hold a thought for more than 5 seconds, then that might mean that you went into it with expectations of how it should go, and then spent your time being high trying to retain the "control" you had sober and bring those expectations to reality. This is a common mistake. The good parts of cannabis come from letting go of expectations of control. It's in letting go that hyper focused states or creative bursts can happen.

Not everyone is able to "let go" at will, but some can do it intuitively while others may have anxieties regarding control that must be worked through.

This doesn't really inspire confidence given the recent reproducibility crises.

Underlying most of these attitudes is a fantasy of one day augmenting themselves beyond human abilities.

It's a culture problem. Suburb dwellers, at best, are indifferent towards their neighbours.

You seem to misunderstand what is meant by "dating down" and the refusal of women to do so. It's not a problem of philosophical compatibility and non traditional roles.

If I like fast cars and I'll I've ever been exposed to is your average beater, then it wouldn't take that much to excite me. A sporty commuter might even do it.

But if I've been consistently exposed to supercars, or if I even own one myself, then it will take a much more impressive vehicle to excite me.

Fundamentally, I'm still attracted to the same thing regardless of my situation: fast cars..but one scenario leaves me wanting a lot more than the other.

If McDonald's required showing your driver's license to pick up your order, would it be a felony to show a fake license and pick up an order? You're not lying to a government organisation. You're just obscuring your identity to a private corporation. I fail to see how that can be any more than unethical.

Look at it this way: Guaranteed income is a non-zero income floor that corrects for past, ongoing, and potentially future theft indiscriminately.

There's a reason it's called human "resources". You better believe that if MBAs could kill or renice employees the way you might do computer processes, they would.

I can't help but wonder — if the CEOs changed their mind so radically about so many fundamental decisions — why should the new decisions be trusted?

The post shows data collected from a fitbit regarding sleep quality

Nazis happened less than 100 years ago and they notably targeted homosexuals.

Often being indirect or imprecise is a cover for ignorance.

Yes.. Go on..?

Oligarchies. See the Canadian telecom and CRTC situation. It looks like competition from the outside, but really it's collusion with false attempts at competition.

The result speaks for itself. The desire to dominate is identical, there's just more or less legal or culturally acceptable ways to going about getting there.

That's exactly the point where you become able to decide for yourself what you'd like to do. I would say that seeing that point negatively and reflexively going back to work your standard job is what makes that period a waste.

That's just because you limit your view to 2 months and look at it in a vacuum.

If you extend your timeline, you may find that you get bored or restless and want to change things up. That "wasted time" is necessary in order to get into a different headspace. It's the equivalent of riding an elevator for your brain... It takes you to a different stage of life.

You say you don't deride it but you just made a judgement call by calling it "squandering".

I guess time spent relearning to walk after a traumatic injury is also squandered time as well then?

I'm assuming you mean local logging of your location, as opposed to burying it in a company's blackbox of a cloud. I think it's a far superior option from a privacy standpoint because you are in control of whether or not that information exists to the rest of the world. That is the critical differentiating factor.

I'm also assuming here that you are actively looking to have your location logged -- something most people do not explicitly sign up for before it starts happening for them (usually after it has manifested results, people accept it as some weird fact-of-life).

I don't see how historicity weakens the argument.

The reality is that data can be used to your benefit or against you. Having more of it doesn't shift the balance one way or another. It just means there's more opportunities to take it one way or the other.

Your times article also makes no mention of location tracking raising exoneration rates. It talks most prominently about how cheap faulty field drug tests contributed significantly to the improper convictions.

That's because you haven't been the victim of fabricated narratives supported by your tracked locations as data in order to imprison or blackmail you. This is just a rehashed "if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about".

Thank you to the other commenter for pointing out the banality of the "crime".

Amazing astroturfing buddy, keep it up.

It's one thing to degrade service quality for the greater good of the userbase (see spectre/meltdown exploit mitigations for example), and it's another thing entirely to do so to the detriment of your userbase.

What you're saying here is the equivalent of me stepping on your brand new shoes and then saying "what... They still work fine!".

Jeff is that you??

We need a tournament that allows for engines. That way the humans are merely avatars of NNs, and may the best engine win. This may also uncover lots of useful insight for the "all-natural" human tournaments.

Where are all the "small government" republicans when you need em?

Your argument is akin to saying "there's so much theory crammed into Astronomy that students do not get to look through a telescope much"

CS fundamentally is not about computers. It's about math and the flow of information between theoretical machines. Computers just happen to be a physical implement.

The idea that universities should teach to develop industry-fit individuals is just an extension of commodifying university education. Why not let the industry handle training for what they need their people to do, and let universities focus on their intended goal: create more university professors/researchers.

What about moving the responsibility (and financial risk) off students' backs and to the corporations that want to exploit the knowledge gained in a degree through apprenticeship and learning to code through experience?

Corporations are people and how dare you threaten peoples' agencies like that! You wouldn't propose that of a human group, so why do it to non-human persons??