temporarely

OP is simply stating a fact. US MIC and Israel have been in a deep embrace. Nothing was said by OP by "driving the ills of the world". Yours is a tactic to prevent even simple statements of facts if it is against your 'perceived' "collective interest" of a minority.

I am interested in learning more on why IDF has deep ties to Boeing. Such a small country, how is it that it has captured so many behemoths. Should we just ignore this rather strange structural phenomena in geopolitics and national interest (speaking as an American here ..)?

In fact the entire world is curious to know exactly who is the premier "ally" in this strange US-Israel alliance. Who is the boss, an inquiring American wants to learn.

The secret isn't that the city of london has existed for centuries. Articles like this are designed to elicit your response. The secret is to what extent the social-political order in the West determined by the Finance and the extent to which they exercise power over nominally sovereign entities.

This is pretty old news, isn't it? Hollywood ..

Isolating an object is baseline recognition. Any sort of semantic association is baseline interpretation. So that border is somewhere between "light source" and "traffic light".

I think this confuses the distinction between a database and a website. What the OP describes is a ~NLP interface to a database of resources, not a "web of resources".

The web by definition is a lazily-materialized query response graph.

I love how he's got the smartest person tick on his y-axis for an "AI researcher" [in the paper]. )) These people are narcissists of the first caliber. Can we graph that?

Why not the presidency. Every four years there is a battle to fine tune the executive LLM, but a secret deep state controls the actual code running and so the LLM is modified to fake partisan fights.

p.s. only slightly tongue in cheek. Use of AI by state to manage social perception is on my bingo card. It will be very effective.

The Manhattan Project was a very successful model of managing big brains or "weird nerds". The key it turns out is having a big brain manage other big brains, while himself managed by a corporate type from the US Army. Another key element is a shared sense of insecurity tied to mission failure. I predict future weird nerds will be herded together in 'safe corporate cities' (like the Googleplex prototype) shielding them from the outside unwashed. They may be weird but they can do the math.

this poor guy keeps getting ignored. here is the tweet https://x.com/rkfg_me/status/1130028610700664832

It is not clear at all if you have even taken the most basic step -- provide feedback for this employee. It's just not clear how to reconcile this impression -- nothing has been said at all -- with the plea for "rescue" from this situation. You mentioned "personal development", so this is a great opportunity to develop those management skills.

You need to provide feedback for your employee. Have a frank discussion about their performance and try and find out what is the actual problem. Assuming there has been little to no actual conversations, it seems you are merely projecting various ailments here. Maybe their cat died, maybe whatever. We simply do not know.

It's possible he was considered a security risk. Turing must have been very upset to keep quiet about precedence in terms of discoveries. I wonder if Shannon got under his skin ..

Sorry to break the news to you Jake but there are two orders. Those of "that era" are the actual power breakers, you guys are the peculiar but innocent window dressing.

> And since, ..

No, the meaning is the secret :) Oh dear.

This is a general cognitive problem in reducing a higher dimensional object to a lower dimensional representation for processing. For a complex entity like society and/or human wellbeing, it seems inevitable that the representation will mask important non-tangible/non-measurable dimensions of the object being considered.

Arguably, he also invented the first ink jet printer ("siphon printer").

Here is a list of his inventions: https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/people/cp37484

There is an abstract in the paper which is more authoritative than wikipedia. You should read the paper. Also whatever Friedman said or did is entirely irrelevant to the so-called Chicago Plan - it's not called the Friedman plan after all :

At the height of the Great Depression a number of leading U.S. economists advanced a proposal for monetary reform that became known as the Chicago Plan. It envisaged the separation of the monetary and credit functions of the banking system, by requiring 100% reserve backing for deposits. Irving Fisher (1936) claimed the following advantages for this plan:

(1) Much better control of a major source of business cycle fluctuations, sudden increases and contractions of bank credit and of the supply of bank-created money.

(2) Complete elimination of bank runs.

(3) Dramatic reduction of the (net) public debt.

(4) Dramatic reduction of private debt, as money creation no longer requires simultaneous debt creation.

We study these claims by embedding a comprehensive and carefully calibrated model of the banking system in a DSGE model of the U.S. economy. We find support for all four of Fisher's claims. Furthermore, output gains approach 10 percent, and steady state inflation can drop to zero without posing problems for the conduct of monetary policy.

The political system angle is a red herring, imo. The issue is how is money created, who gets to create it, and what sort of political economy then grows around it. Our system is based on private entities creating money out of thin air and then charging interest on it. Everybody else must service these debts so continual "growth" is baked into the system.

IMF (surprisingly) allowed two economists to take a look at an alternative.

Chicago Plan Revisited, 2012

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12202.PDF

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_plan

see also: https://ethw.org/Electromechanical_Telephone-Switching

I would think symmetric bandwidth is baked into switched circuit networks by definition.

A bit earlier than 2000 /g https://lineofsightgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/phon...

The terminology is wrong but your point is valid. There is no internal criteria or mechanism for statement verification. As the mind likely is also in part a high dimensional construct and LLMs to an extent represent our collective jumble of 'notions' it is natural that their emits resonate with human users.

Q1: A ""correct" symbolic representation" of x. What is x? Your "Is there an intent to communicate, or" choice construct is problematic. Why would one require a "symbolic representation" of x, x likely being a 'meaningful thought'. So this is a hot debate whether semantics is primary or merely application. I believe it is primary in which case "symbolic representation" is 'an aid' to gaining a concrete sense of what is 'somehow' 'understood'. You observe a phenomena, and understand its dynamics. You may even anticipate it while observing. To formalize that understanding is the beginning of 'expression'.

Q2: because while there is a function LLM(encodings, q) that emits 'plausible' responses, an equivalent function for Pi does not exist outside of 'pure inexpressible realm of understanding' :)

Well, tried modifying Caffeine (since it looks like there should be a perfectly 3-symmetric variant repeating the O and CH3 arms, but it ain't "beautiful". Wonder how their Caffeine molecule comes out so perfect. Here is the code for my wonder molecule:

   -- Wonder molecule, expressed via structural-formula DSL
   Carbon C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6
   Nitrogen N1, N2, N3
   Oxygen O1, O2, O3
   Hydrogen H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6, H7, H8, H9

   SingleBond(H1, C1)
   SingleBond(H2, C1)
   SingleBond(H3, C1)
   SingleBond(N1, C1)

   SingleBond(H4, C2)
   SingleBond(H5, C2)
   SingleBond(H6, C2)
   SingleBond(N2, C2)

   SingleBond(H7, C3)
   SingleBond(H8, C3)
   SingleBond(H9, C3)
   SingleBond(N3, C3)

   DoubleBond(O1, C4)
   DoubleBond(O2, C5)
   DoubleBond(O3, C6)

   SingleBond(N1, C4)
   SingleBond(N1, C5)

   SingleBond(N2, C5)
   SingleBond(N2, C6)

   SingleBond(N3, C6)
   SingleBond(N3, C4)

   AutoLabel All

   Title title
   Label title "C6H9N3O3"

The obvious answer is predatory finance capitalism.

heads-up, only the first link has actual comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39123276

I think we should have the exit agreement (if any) included and agreed to as part of the signing the employment contract.

Who are we paying this interest to? US fiat is accepted worldwide because of Petrodollar and US Navy. What do private banks have to back their money printing machines?

Why isn't the US Goverment printing its own money out of thin air? Why is that privilige given to private banks?

It's a valid notion but is it supported by evidence? Supporting evidence would be evidence of periodic burning of villages because that's what warlords do to peaceful settlements.

Also it is likely that the notion of "elites" is different in our age than in the era before the invention of money. Our elites are not elites of mind, soul, or even body. They are sitting on their hordes of extracted wealth. Earlier any sort of elites in an agrarian society (which presumably precludes strongmen type of "elite") would likely be based on group psychology and charismatic power (shaman, priests, divine representative, etc.)

Will is affecting, bringing about, one's intent. Intentions are based on thought. Thought is engendered in the mind. A weak mind is susceptible to suggestions. Suggestibility is indicative of an inability to resist 'external' (not necessarily in the physical sense) influences.

The question of free will is meaningful as a dual of the proposition of determinism. I suggest to you :) that you lack clarity of thought and need to work on that.

Constrain =/= create

The core of the flaw in your proposition is the premise of making the determination based on external observation.

The actual question is this: do I have free will or not? Life presents us with choices. To paraphrase the prince of Denmark, 'Do I decide to do x or !x? That is the question'.

Related question is does I (distinct from Reality) even have a real existence?

In the 2 slit experiment, as long as the future state of the system is undecidable, we see light behave as waves. When the future of the system is constrained (by measure, which is a 'means of determination') does light behave like a particle.

You are confusing suggestibility with the question of free will.

reddit this way -> www.reddit.com