SI_Rob

I dread that we are going to see a _lot_ of of cults appear, and a disturbing concentration of political power around cult leadership as a social modality. With a large overlap with the despair-distraction-escapism industry as entertainers become increasingly valorized into spiritual and thought leaders, and eventually leaders, full stop.

They will, as did monarchs in feudal times, draw their power base from the multitude of disenfranchised commoners seeking guidance, respite from the bleak outlook for those with little or no prospect of upward mobility, and a rallying point from which to focus any semblance of pushback against the landed baronial classes. But they will all the while be paying a hefty tax to those who maintain the broadcast infrastructure that enables them to marshall and monetize their followers, so even these kings and queens will need to stay in the graces of some potentate or other.

Do humans?

Are these terms well defined or just subjective "I know it when I feel it" echoes of an unresolved debate over residual beliefs in a dualistic mind/body dichotomy?

What if it turns out that a confluent sequence of sensory inputs amounts to a unique neurophysical vector that initiates a particular activation cascade in another cluster of nerves, some outputs of which do not have images in the conscious domain (are not phenomenological) despite strongly informing it resulting in what we call 'creativity', all together defining a path back through our sensory encoding/decoding apparatus which we recognize as 'thought.'

I am not convinced that we are looking at this question through the right end of the telescope here.

I think you might be unfamiliar with the term "dualism" since you don't appear to understand that your reasoning is synonymous with current spec, put briefly: "In general, [Dualism] the idea is that, for some particular domain, there are two fundamental kinds or categories of things or principles." [0]

To what domain, exactly, are you trying to relegate concepts with your vaguely dismissive take that they are "inside people's heads," as if this doesn't invalidate thought as an origin of material (that is, natural) change and thus pulls the rug out from under your statement itself - since, being just a concept inside your head, it should not have been capable of accumulating the physical mass and energy necessary to get out of your head, onto HN's server, and onto my screen - the letters of which are not randomly generated but an ordered echo of material pointing back to the source informing their order.

The relationship of concept to material is, especially in this kind of case, about as intrinsic as a relationship between entities can be.

When you look at, say, a pyramid in Egypt or Mexico etc, you are looking at the material shadow cast by nothing less than a concept that was at some point, only "inside someone's head" and which remains a fundamental and intrinsic characteristic of that structured mass of earth and stone.

[0]https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/

hard drives are only cheap if you don't care availability, integrity, and longevity.

or your free time - but what is not worth even ones free time can't be worth much to one at all so...

perhaps they want to get their material out of the training set feed trough of all the Sora-style models consuming anything and everything not nailed down with an as-yet non-existant source watermarking scheme that can pass through the most tormented AI digestive tract.

my usual go-to here is to observe that cancer is 100% all-natural.

I have been tempted to put it on a T-shirt to be worn at gatherings where I might find myself in the company of people who celebrate or promote "natural" as if it were an axiomatic good.

In reality I could never bring myself to wear it in public out of concern for by-catch side effects: griefing random strangers for whom the miseries of cancer may form a very real part of their daily experience is not something I'd want to be associated with even if it was not the intended result.

permaculture a good place to investigate a basis of the essential conflict at work here, which is that perma-anything and "innovation" are orthogonal forces over the same domain. Would any culture be capable of improving on the resource rivalry -> technical conflict -> cultural domination/consolidation model?

this is a dualistic belief that regards humans operating on human concepts as being somehow a qualitatively distinct phenomenon from the "system that systems" - a system in which they themselves increasingly constitute a locally (and potentially, a universally) significant energetic routing circuit.

An superbly well-put rationalization for banal, business-as-usual cruelty. A desire to demonstrate that "I can go where others are too weak-minded/unwilling/inflexible to go" - to out-smug the smugness one sees wherever they find humanistic purpose, is to put an axe to the trunk of the tree on whose branches one smugly sits. Top kek, and all that.

But maybe you are not trolling. I'll assume rather that you're merely directing a blunt, honest cynicism toward what you see as the shallow, disingenuous cynicism of humanism (which I don't specifically subscribe but it's close enough for a throwaway internet argument). Someone who may or may not come from a place of disillusioned idealism, but in any case is not at all unhappy but rather perfectly content knowing we live in a morally neutral universe. Perhaps even a little pleased with yourself for having the tough-mindedness /so lacking in others/ that enables you to thrive in a hard objective vacuum intolerable to less robust spirits. Since there is essentially no point to anything, there will be no eschatological reckoning, and naturally no possible harm in optimizing for one's own material satisfaction for there is no such thing as harm at all.

Until we are confronted with conclusive evidence of intelligent life in the universe apart from what has developed in our own gravity well (setting aside the possibility of such entities existing outside a mutually impassible causality horizon); which is to say until we find evidence that the universe either has potential for a purposeful complex homeostasis other than the one we ourselves pursue, or else the apparent universal default fate of reduction to an undifferentiated energetic equilibrium, it is neither cold nor kind to act logically on the actual evidence at hand, which strongly suggests we are indeed the sole custodial inhabitants of this universe, conscious of our leverage over its fate, as we are of this planet (insofar as the notion of "custody" is presently confined to it until we learn otherwise - which, as an aside, would be fascinating even if it might trigger our destruction).

Consciousness (and the awareness, among other things, of suffering that it entails) will have to appear somewhere in the accessible universe first if it is to appear at all. So far, there's no basis for thinking that that somewhere isn't this biosphere right here, and consequently, for our purposeful (even if futile) opposition to the universal tendency toward self-consuming annihilation that would, unchecked, smother consciousness in its cradle.

in a vast, global cooperative

I don't mean to dismiss the larger truth here about humanity's responsibility to exercise restraint in playing the impossibly strong 5-ace hand it was dealt by natural selection.

But the naturalistic fallacy has a knack for hiding its sharpest razors among the soft folds of words like "cooperative."

The universe appears, as far as we can tell, overwhelmingly hostile toward life with the sole observed exception of our precariously balanced biosphere.

And that biosphere is itself a circulatory system built on exploitation, consumption, and predation - host to endless torrent of unimaginable agonies which are both staggeringly abundant and structurally inalienable from the matrix of this 'cooperative' system.

It's hard, as another HN'er once succinctly put it, to be more cruel than Nature.

I don't see a problem with this mainly because I would argue that innovation, in the early modern european era onward sense of "technologies that tend to direct the cumulative power of the many into the control of a few" captured by the infographic, isn't necessarily a net positive for humanity, and thus leaving non-western influences out of it keeps those cultures in the benefit of the doubt.

The next century or two may well see us wipe ourselves out as a species, as the great elliptic of this leverage-amplifying 'innovation' arc comes crashing back on itself..

It may well be that not innovating, in this western-dominated sense, was the right strategy for our species survival all along, and thus clamoring to be included in this narrative is to demand that non-western cultures be given a position of honor alongside the west in the story of humanity's self-destruction.

the chart, for all its flaws, doesn't seem to conclude anything interesting about innovation per se, but rather suggests that the development of technology is ultimately motivated by the desire by the few to abstract, concentrate and consolidate the levers of power in order to cultivate the values and actions - the culture - of the many to suit the preservation of their status as elites.

Indeed, there are a great many non-western examples of this as well.

Beautiful from a conceptual arm's-length distance, and clearly a massive effort invested in this. But I find myself asking who this is meant for?

A lot of unavoidable, but still quite subjective compromises had to be made to project the very high-n space addressed by this infographic into 2 representational dimensions. A lot of stuff got mapped to the zero vector here.

On that note, when I drill into the details I see things that are initially puzzling, such as the lineage starting from cartesian geometry seeming to end abruptly at vector calculus, to be resumed (but without guiding connectors) both above as forecasting, and a panel or so rightward as Markov Chains and further on, the somewhat loose cluster of concepts headed by the word "Transformers."

And... what's with all the hunched-over shoegazers? Are they here to pay off a debt? Their multiplicity and contextual disjointedness with respect to their surroundings somehow gives off MidJourney vibes. First time I've ever felt a pang of sympathy for clip-art.

It looks like the authors were inspired by those mind-bendingly complex biological cycle charts published by Roche, but didn't want to attempt the extremely tedious (and necessary, IMO) bird's nest business of cross-linking causally influenced (but rep-space remote) systems with a spaghetti of directed connectors and data detailing that those charts made famous.

So, a pricing exploit based on arbitrage between the rigorous description (and enforcement) of payment for a service in one direction, and the comparatively un-policed description of the service delivered, in the other? Perhaps the lawyering class wants everyone to either suffer under their miserable penchant for overweening semantic nitpicking, or suffer it along with them.

Shelly's WiFi devices are all fairly cloud-optional - you can completely disconnect the internet and they will all work with Home Assistant just fine. Still, I'm not as excited about them as I used to be (mainly due to realizing there's a ton of cool-looking I/O flexibility they have that ends up being redundant once you settle on a control plane for wifi - MQTT in my case), and because their exposure of features and properties is somewhat inconsistent across device families.

But as a way to unburden your (usually one and only) Zigbee channel from certain types of chatty messaging, such as high-accuracy presence sending or complex lighting curve adjustments that can't be done ergonomically (or at all) via Zigbee, they are invaluable. Wifi (jailed in a VLAN, if you like) also provides a layer of failure protection should your Zigbee coordinator die unexpectedly.

I tend to think highly of most of the comments I see from you man, but you are quite confused about how this stuff works if you believe that the pay-to-play aspect of a cryptocurrency can be divorced from the blockchain used to track it. They are no more separable from one another than front is from back or up is from down.

A blockchain without the economic carrot-stick power to protect its own integrity and internal rules, power that comes from aligning the behavior of otherwise unrelated and even mutually antagonistic custodial participants by incentivizing their common interest in getting rich (or at least not losing their existing wealth), is no more than a database with superfluous "decentralization theater" yak shaving bolted on.

If defecting from the game doesn't cost you a meaningful penalty (and such cost is defined by a fixed unit of measure, in order to distinguish in-game gains from losses) then you are not compelled to follow its rules except by your own conscience. This would be noble, but it would not be a blockchain.

thank you, I always wondered why the word used for that stuff was just its actual name in Japanese. I've never heard it referred to as kani-kamaboko, despite being quite familiar with kamaboko (i guess, just the generic term for that pink tinted rubbery roll of fish) itself. This makes a lot of sense.

However, aren't some types of imitation crab not kamaboko at all but a kind of fish fillet processed with crab juice to give it that flavor?

I actually dislike the taste of crab so I am not all that familiar with the options.

Perhaps the reason is that gravity is so consistently even-handed a deity. No cycles or torments, no regional variation, just the same exact instantaneous acceleration for all mortals and their measurements. Gravity is in that sense, indirectly venerated through its measure as weight.

1. Secure the blessings of Gravity above the claims of any lesser god, for it is in her honor that all temples are necessarily dedicated, no matter what name is on the door.

F1 does, perhaps, but what about F2, F3, F10^7452?

Sigh. If any of the downvoters knew how well connected parent commenter is (as in, has had years of extensive and direct communications with) basically everyone of note in crypto, Buterin included. Many of these discussions are published, as well. He's choosing to use a handle here on HN so I'll just leave it at that.

This perspective is blunt, but correct. Crypto is successful primarily by virtue of its unregulated rube goldberg casino revenue model, with just enough of a plausible tech veneer to allow people to rationalize behavior otherwise indistinguishable from naked gambling.

Crypto does not solve the centralization of leverage over liquidity (and thus the ability of a few to manipulate the wealth of many), which is the sole centralization "problem" that matters to the vast majority of people who would use it.

Take away the Potemkin decentralization apparatus known as a blockchain (the premise of which holds that The State and its central bank minions are the only centralizing agents capable of public harm) and you are left with plain old unsexy digital currency.

I think some of the replies are missing your little s/carbon/CO2 sleight of hand there :)

Is he still actively involved with REBOL?

Is REBOL - er, RED, still an active project? Dialecting sounded like an early attempt at a generalized DSL model, but I never had time to follow the details.

I believe there are still something on the order of 150,000 BTC waiting to be dumped on the market as the Mt. Gox bankruptcy (I guess it's "civil rehabilitation" now) slowly grinds along to resolution. Not all of them will be sold of course, but a decent fraction of those people are probably crossing into retirement age by the time they will, and they will likely need the cash money more than the cryptopunk ideology by then.

and pioneering exchange coins with the securities/utility token mash-up called BNB.

To be fair there were other exchanges that tried this 'invest in the house' gambit, but Binance made it stick.

I misread the OP as NASA, which was careless but I still think the observation is worth noting. Also worth noting is that there is a museum on the NSA campus (National Cryptologic Museum) that anyone can visit without any clearance, and though there are vastly trickier chicanes to contend with compared to the access at NASA administrative HQ, merely visiting the cryptologic museum ushers one past several otherwise highly restricted perimeter zones.

The NASA HQ administration building off 4th and E just south of the Mall has no armed guards posted outside, and there's even a NASA public credit union in the building, which does not require passing through the metal detectors or security post just a couple doors away in the same open lobby.

It is visited by plenty of non-NASA, non-government ordinary customers who could easily blend in with official foot traffic on a busy day and make just a dozen paces to the main elevator banks or stairwells looking for an opportunity.

guess this old girl needs another walk around her paddock:

  Your post advocates a

  (x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

  approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

  ( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
  (x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
  ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
  ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
  (x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
  (x) Users of email will not put up with it
  (x) Microsoft will not put up with it
  ( ) The police will not put up with it
  (x) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
  (x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
  (x) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
  ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
  ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

  Specifically, your plan fails to account for

  ( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
  ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
  ( ) Open relays in foreign countries
  ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
  ( ) Asshats
  ( ) Jurisdictional problems
  ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
  (x) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
  ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
  ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
  ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
  (x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
  ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
  ( ) Extreme profitability of spam
  ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
  ( ) Technically illiterate politicians
  (x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
  ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
  ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
  (x) Outlook

  and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

  (x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical (specifically, HashCash)
  ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
  ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
  ( ) Blacklists suck
  ( ) Whitelists suck
  ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
  ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
  ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
  (x) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
  (x) Sending email should be free
  ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
  ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
  ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
  ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
  ( ) I don't want the government reading my email
  ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

  Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

  (x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
  ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
  ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!

You might want to google "hashcash," for a little history on PoW and email. It's an idea that goes back before Bitcoin and was one of its influences.

Decentralization of anything other than leverage over liquidity and thus price, which is what the Bitcoin 1% (more like 0.01%) holds, is nothing more than a misdirection story to furnish prospective Joe 99% Bitcoiners with the illusion that once they switch to BTC, their wealth will be placed outside interference or control by undesirable, presumably centralized forces.

When Bitcoiners say decentralized they mean, in fact, that its value (through some gating mechanic like issue or "censorship") is not controlled by a government, as if this is somehow any better than the value of one's wallet being controlled by unknown parties, front running exchange operators or mining cartels.

Bitcoin proponents pretend that government centralization of money supply is the only kind of centralization of money that needs fixing, and its mechanisms are thus designed to make an elaborate show of diffusing operational accountability while doing nothing to counteract a pathological concentration of leverage.

As a result, it doesn't actually decentralize anything, it instead relocates all of the centralization under obfuscated cover. This in itself isn't a problem, if promoters would upfront about it. But then no decentralization meme would certainly mean no Bitcoin at $30k, and what's the fun in that?