shlurpy

So any LGBT authors and any femenists?

Sounds like a good argument to severely cut millitary spending, not science spending. Also, pure science is the part of eventually getting useful qol improvements that absolutely cannot be done through simple short sighted private research, but proves time and time again to be invaluable.

The mass constraint in space engineering is a real killer, unfortunately. I doubt they want so many single points of failure, but I also understand it can be effectively impossible to add redundancy within mass window.

The difference is subtypes being treated as super types, ie, OOP stuff. Type erasure is different in a language where basically any typed value could also contain a value of any subtype. All those other languages you mention make that functionality opt in, which is why they aren't object oriented languages.

You have to take into account bias even then. Negative bias and propaganda can be just as strong. But yeah, I personally read German news or AL Jazeera or whatever.

Food and shelter clearly aren't solved by the free market, or malnutrition and homelessness wouldn't be so prevelant. It just moves the problem to someone or somewhere else, and has to be augmented by public funds to keep the problems from exploding. And transportation isn't even close to a free market... when is the last time you traveled somewhere entirely on private unsubsidized infrastructure? You can't even leave your driveway.

He was wrong because there are so many systems of thought; because he wasn't accounting for or aware of the existance of subconscious thought; because thoughts are context dependant; and of course because all formal systems of this sort tend to suffer incompleteness. However, I have only the greatest respect, as asking a question that leads to so many deep and interesting answers is far more difficult and important then having a "correct hypothesis".

The sixty year old promises failed or were rolled back because of the 40 year old ratcheting towards neoliberalism removed the ability for government to conceive of meaningful action, as a bipartisan consensus with no alternatives.

How would we build 150 reactors today? We would get together "industry leaders" to consult, who would suggest half of that be some non-nuclear nonsense to line their pockets, then we would provide incentives to companies written by those companies with loopholes, would take that money and make half assed attempts that allow them to keep the largest portion of taxpayer money possible with the least effort, and then abandon their efforts to shell companies embroiled in lawsuits.

Little would get done at the cost of massive amounts of public money flowing into private hands. This is by design, and its the only thing politics is aligned to do. When it works out in some area, it's fluke for the system and fortune in a sea of failure for the people of the nation.

Companies can be disbanded and reformed. The people in charge can distance themselves from the "failed" attempt and make a new, nonblacklisted one. That's why punishment and blacklisting has to extend to decision-makers, rather then flimsy symbolic entities.

Why is it bad? If government competition forces wages up, that seems like would finally solve the decades long wage stagnation that markets have been unable to, right?

The article explicitly agrees with the sentiment of GP; it states that among the solutions is increasing compensation to reduce turnover. Obviously it's not the only part to the solution, since you've dug yourself hole by having poor retention in the first place, but it certainly helps to stop creating the problem as you solve it.

I didn't see in the article any evidence for this shrinkage correlating with intelligence. It seems plausible that the initial adaptation is just raw, inefficient fast growth (ie, evolution solving intelligence the simplest possible way through raw unorganized volume), and the subsequent shrinkage is accompanied by internal structural improvements and optimization. In other words, like we often do in engineering, first we just throw more more hardware at it to fulfill demands, and then as we optimize algorithmic efficiency the extra hardware becomes unnecessary again.

There is a hard limit. If you want to get somewhere, you have to get there before the expansion of the universe moves it away forever. Our accessible universe is constantly shrinking. It's a natural law that places firm discontinuities on optimization.

This may seem silly, but microcontroller shrinking is running into a similar problem with quantum noose, which is by far the closer boundary.

The accelerating expantion of the universe also importantly bounds availible time, which makes the specific equation governing how fast optimization can be achieved relevant. For example, if the cost of increasing intelligence is sufficiently exponential past a certain point, a true singularity may never come. And if it's more like busy beaver then exponential then it may be impossible for it to ever get very far indeed.

A lot of "rights" should scale inversely with power, to counteract how their effectiveness scales positively with power. The idea behind universal Democracy is that you should have collective power over everyone who has meaningful authority over you.

The power weilded by a government should be kept in check democratically by their constituents. As your blog grows into YouTube, you gain more and more power over people's lives and livelihoods... more political and economic reach with your decisions. That power should thus grow proportionally more limited by mechanisms of user empowerment, rights, and direct control.

There isn't a cutoff... there should instead be a sliding scale.