simiones

Even this is too simplistic. While C compilers normally use the OS ABI, there is nothing that requires them to do this, and other languages don't. Of course, when you need to call functions provided by the OS, you have to do so following the OS ABI; but calls between functions written in your own language, even in different libs, don't need to follow this same rule.

I'm pretty sure that would fall under freedom of religion rights, and it couldn't be banned. Especially as proselytizing is a well known and well established religious practice.

I think they meant "unknown numbers" as "numbers that are not saved in my phone", not hidden numbers.

"Solution" seems rather euphemistic for making people literal slaves of AI.

A change can introduce regressions in any large project even if 100% of unit tests pass. Unit tests test individual units, regressions can happen at many levels. Especially if we treat performance degradations as regressions.

It is a well known fact that projects with unit tests never have regressions.

Well, even that doesn't really work, because optimized allocators typicallly don't allocate exactly the amount that you ask for, they allocate some larger chunk to help with both alignment and fragmentation.

So, most likely, there are two sizes in reality: the size of your user data that you care about; and the size of the memory chunk in which your user data resides, that free() cares about. So, unless you're willing to go for an API like this, you can't rely on the consumer:

  int* ptr_to_dest = NULL;
  size_t size = 10 * sizeof(int);
  size_t allocated = malloc(&ptr_to_dest, size);
  if (allocated <= 0 || !ptr_to_dest) {
    //handle allocation error
  }
  //... use ptr_to_dest, size
  free(ptr_to_dest, allocated); //careful not to pass size here!

> The US can win the opening military phase pretty decisively.

Can they? Iran seems to have destroyed them pretty decisively, after the literal first day of casualties (which were happening while Iran thought it had just reached an agreement that would prevent a war, per the Omani negotiators at that time).

But the point of the conjecture is not that "some equilibrium price exists and can be reached". The whole point is that even monopolists will actually sell this type of good directly at the marginal cost, at the fix point. That is the whole prediction; and/or that no one would buy if they did otherwise.

People generally hate to see scams stealing money from naive marks. Both SpaceX and Tesla are obvious scams at anything close to their current valuations (despite having real, functional businesses in there! ), that Elon keeps pumping up with ever more ridiculous claims (50 million humanoid robots by 2026/7! Tesla Roadster out by 2024, pre-order now! Starship point-to-point for business travel by 2030! Datacenters in space!).

Why 50,000 years of technological development and not 50 billion?

> (False that life dies in minutes in space; plus the engineers can invest in even greater error correction than radiodurans.)

What form of life can actually survive (that is, continue living, not just go into some dormant state from which it can later resurrect like a tardigrade) in space for more than a few minutes?

Not in rocky bodies, except maybe for Oxygen (which is commonly found in the form of oxides, very rarely as a gas). Carbon and Nitrogen and Hydrogen and similar elements are mostly found in gas clouds and star that are not really conducive to any form of life or even really fit for extraction by a probe. Maybe some gas giants could be targets for a process of this kind?

> A lot of computational power can be thrown at the problem in this time.

We know plenty of actually very simple problems that we would not be able to solve from now till the Sun explodes even if we all of the computers on earth were only doing this. Say, solving a worse case instance of the Knapsack problem for n > 250 items easily fits into this.

If you want to be precise, the complexity class EXP best fits my description (though NP-complete would also be enough). That is, if discovering the required technology to build a self-replicating interstellar probe requires solving an instance of an EXP problem that is not ridiculously tiny, then we would likely never be find out how to build this probe. And no amount of AGI would change this, in this case.

I'm not suggesting that I have any reason for this ridiculously precise scenario to be correct. Just that some technology being allowed by the laws of physics should not be taken to mean that it is actually implementable in any imaginable amount of time, even if we were to assume singularity-style AGI.

I hate this assumption that many sci-fi enthusiasts seem to make, that as long as something is not ruled out by currently known physics rules, it doesn't matter that we have no idea how it could be built, there will be some way in some plausible future.

When we see currently insurmountable problems in creating a piece of technology, it's absolutely possible that we'll never be able to build it. Even if it is theoretically constructible, there is no reason to believe that the way to build it would be found before, say, the sun runs out of hydrogen.

The thing is, while the universe is full of metals, it's not that full of the materials needed to sustain life (as we know it, at least). You can find metals and other inorganic compounds on virtually every asteroid, moon, and planet, and many comets even. But water and nitrogen and carbon are significantly rarer.

Plus, life can't survive more than a few minutes in space without metal encasings and electronic life support; whereas metal alone only requires life at a much longer time scale. So, while it may be possible to build a fully inorganic self-replicating fleet, it's certainly impossible to build a fully-organic one with any technology or chemistry we know about today at least.

Per the article, the NTHE "movement" are doom sayers, not doom pushers. That is, the NTHE people are people who predict that humanity and most complex life on Earth will be killed off by global warming by 2030 (used to be 2026), through a somewhat convoluted but unavoidable series of consequences of the polar ice cap melting completely (in their theory). There is no indication that the NTHE people want this outcome to happen, it's just the outcome they think is already unavoidable.

Now, the author's position is both more and less nihilistic. The author also seems to think that human extinction is unavoidable, but he thinks the timeline is much more dragged out. He also seems to think that this is actually the preferable outcome at this point, given that global warming is our own fault, and that the only thing we should do is try to make it so that the planet is as well as it can be after we are finally gone.

If I need to take notes by hand, I definitely prefer cursive writing (though I have my own variations & preferences, for example I write almost all capital letters in the print versions). I never saw a reason to learn to draw a more type-like font by hand, so that definitely feels much worse whenever I decide to do it (e.g. for filling in certain forms).

Of course there are, even among the canonical gospels. The length of Jesus' ministry is uncertain (1 year in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but 3 years in the later John). What Mary and Joseph did after his birth also conflicts among the gospels - according to Matthew, they fled to Egypt, and only returned after Herrod had died (4 BC) while according to Luke, they went to the Temple in Jerusalem to cleanse Mary, which would have happened 40 days after the birth. Some of the identities of the disciples differ between the Synoptic gospels and John (particularly, there is no Bartholomew, no Matthew, no James son of Alphaeus, and no Simon except Simon Peter). The various miracles and acts of Jesus, the exact contents of the sermon on the mount, the parables that he shared - there are many other differences between all the canonical gospels.

Of course, they all agree on a broad narrative - Jesus was born of a virgin Mother in Bethlehem, lived in Nazareth for some time, wandered for 40 days in the wild where he was tempted, then returned and was baptized by John the Baptist, collected a number of disciples while preaching in Galilee and performing various miracles, then during Passover entered Jerusalem, came into conflict with the Jewish religious authorities and/or the Roman authorities, had a last supper with his disciples, and was crucified, died, was buried in a tomb, and was resurrected.

This is about it in terms of the major plot points that are common. Major acts, such as expelling the money lenders from the Temple or the resurrection of Lazarus, are not part of the shared narrative - they either occur at different times (in John, expelling the money lenders is one of the first acts of Jesus, at the start of his ministry, not one of his last public acts at the end), or not at all (the story of Lazarus is only present in John).

I would say that there are indeed major narrative differences between the Gospels.

> For our thought experiment, let us suppose that science observes God doing something at step 1 (systematic observation). Now, what is science going to do with it? It's going to throw it out at step 2 (search for a regularity), because there is no regularity - unless God does the same miracle repeatedly.

> But if it makes it past that step, the next problem comes at step 3 (forming a hypothesis). Under current thinking, God will never be the hypothesis. But in our thought experiment, God is actually the cause!

> And even if God were to be the hypothesis, the next problem comes at step 4 (testing). How could you test the hypothesis? "Uh, God, could you do that again, and please sign it this time"? I don't see how you could do the experiment, even in principle.

This sounds very convincing at first glance, but it completely disregards the actual history and practice of science.

In particular, for your insurmountable problems with steps 1 and 4, we actually have lots of scientific theories about singular events that we can't reproduce. Perhaps the most famous and well studied of these is the Big Bang.

If there were some god who could perform supernatural events, and presuming it didn't then explicitly try to obscure them from us, we could still study the consequences of these breaks in regular physics. If loaves multiplied for a feast, we may not be able to reproduce the event, but we could still use scientific means to confirm whether enough material had been present in the area to produce the total observed number of loaves of bread that was reported; and we could study the waste from the feast to corroborate eye witness testimonies with physical evidence (bread crumbs, stool samples, weight of the participants before and after, etc).

And historically, for step 3 - even though today gods or God are not commonly accepted hypothesis, they/he were for a long time in the history of science. However, every time something was thought to only possibly originate from supernatural causes, a natural physical/biological mechanism was later found. After this happened enough times, scientists started disfavoring this hypothesis, on the basis that it was not turning out to be useful or necessary.

Not really. Sure, sometimes long established archaeological conclusions get overturned by new digs, new sources, or just new methods or new evidence of similar events in other places and so on.

But one very important thing to add here is that there is no bias against the naturalistic narratives of the Bible in mainstream archaeology / Bible scholarship / historiography. Huge swaths of the Bible are considered firmly historical, with many important Bible characters being well attested to and many events in the Bible being accepted as historical facts. For example, the prophet Elijah and King Ahab are widely considered to be real people. The events of the exile to Babylon are (now) considered as well to be real historical events.

> How could it be otherwise? If there were reproducible evidence, then the phenomenon in question would be classified as natural.

Imagine that we found, today, the burning bush, still on fire but not consumed by it, thousands of years later. Say someone tried all known techniques to extinguish it, but it wouldn't. We may be able to study and characterize it precisely and call it "natural" in that sense, but I think many would agree that it would be very clear evidence that this claim in Exodus was actually historically based.

Similarly, say that we had credible videos, and other instrument recordings, of the blue fire that the Orthodox Patriarchs claim descends from the heavens on Jesus' tomb every year on Orthodox Easter. We may even develop a theory of what the substance is and what it represents and where it originates (spatially) and so on - but if it happens spontaneously and only affects certain things (candles held by the faithful) and not others (say, gasoline-soaked rags prepared by a scientist to test this out), then even a scientist would have to conclude that this phenomenon is real and outside the realm of physics as it is understood today.

Both "immigrated to" and "emigrated to" are correct, and mean the same thing; they just emphasize, slightly, different things.

You wrote:

> One can easily see the events leading to the Exodus being enabled by (or causing, depending on who you ask!) the weakening of Egypt

I think that if I'm right that the events of Exodus simply never happened that would quite thoroughly refute any possible link to the historical bronze age collapse. It would be like saying that the events of the Epic of Gilgamesh being enabled by the weakening of Egypt.

I didn't mention it, but the events in the Book of Joshua are also very much non-historical - there are no signs whatsoever of a conquest of parts of Canaan by any other group at a time that would be consistent with the Biblical narrative. The historical, linguistic, and archaeological evidence is most consistent with the ancient Israelites simply being a specific group of Canaanites that established a kingdom in the area in which they had lived for millennia.

> But personally, I think the book of Judges very much feels set in the kind of post-apocalyptic world that the Collapse would have created.

The Book of Judges is also regarded as mostly non-historical by modern day scholars.

Elijah (who, unlike Moses, is probably a real historical figure) lived long after the events depicted in Exodus. And Exodus ends with the all of the Israelites faithfully following Yahweh's commandments, after narrowly avoiding death for their worship of the golden bull idol. The book of Kings presents a time long after that, when the people of the now divided Israel have lost their way and started worshiping Baal - as opposed to their ancestors who only worshiped Yahweh.

Thanks! I found it quite interesting the first time I read about the current scholarly consensus around this, as I had before only ever heard of the mainstream religious (Christian, in my case) view of these events. Even after becoming an atheist, I had for a long time assumed that, while of course the parting of the Red Sea and similar miraculous events were not historical, the overall narrative was, and that Moses had existed and been some kind of spiritual leader, similar to the historical Jesus.

I think it's quite extraordinary how little the scholarly and historical consensus on these narratives has penetrated mainstream culture, even among a secular audience, so I like to bring it up whenever it is mentioned.

This was not idolatry, as depicted in Exodus - this was full blown state religion, held in the same esteem as Yahweh, and co-existing with worship of him. So much so that El later became identified with Yahweh, and now most people reading the Bible (including Jewish people, Christians, and Muslims) believe El is just another one of Yahweh's names, or maybe the name of one of his angels.

It describes it as a sectary offshoot relatively quickly corrected - while the historical evidence suggests that it was part of the main religion of these people for a long time. Note also that, while Baal became an adversary of Yahweh and/or a false god in later narratives, Asherah and El were ultimately identified with Yahweh - to the point that mentions of El in the Bible became identified as referring to the same being as Yahweh.

No, they don't. But they do claim lineage to Alfred the Great, whose lineage is traced by legendary sources to Woden/Odin, and from there to Noah and Adam. In some versions, Beowulf is also part of that lineage.

Yes, Troy existed - we know that because we found it. If we found evidence of a mass migration of slaves from Egypt to Canaan, we'd also know that certain aspects of the Exodus narrative are true - but no such evidence has ever been found.

The biblical flood has been connected to various possible historical floods, but any such connection is highly speculative and tenuous, because the details simply can't match the original claims.

Similarly, some kernel of the Exodus narrative is quite possibly related to real migration events that actually happened, though they would necessarily be much smaller in scope. They also couldn't be the sole origin of the Ancient Israelites, as there is overwhelming evidence that they are simply a subset of the native people of Canaan, which had continuously inhabited that region for a very long time. We also know that the monotheistic/henotheistic religion described in the Exodus narrative was not the religion practiced by the people of Canaan, nor of the early kingdoms of Israel and Judah, which worshiped several other gods in addition to Yahweh (there are temples and inscriptions attesting to worship of Asherah, El, and even Baal in addition to Yahweh, at least).