bonobo

I see, thanks for your reply. I'm still with physicalism so far, but I see your point. It gave me more room for thought.

You are a feature of the world that is impressed upon me.

I was disappointed here for a while thinking about my NPC nature and place in this world, then I realized *YOU* must be a (very persuasive I'll admit) feature of the world that is impressed upon *ME*. Now I'm fine again. Thanks to myself for giving rise to such an interesting p-zombie like you.

I find your position quite interesting but I feel like it still suffers the same issues I've seen in other "mind-first" arguments (I'm sorry for any ill-defined terms as I'm not a philosopher myself), such as p-zombies (how do you know other people are conscious as well?) and the origin of it.

I think both positions (physicalism vs mind-first) suffer from the same issue that is to reach the bottom of it all, except physicalism seems to have reached further. In the past we wondered what the world was made of and we observed it, coming to the idea of elements such as Aether, then later developed chemistry then physics, reaching layer below layer of rules that interact to the emergence of the layer above. Lots of rules that we can (apparently) reproduce and verify, cells emerging from molecules interacting emerging from atoms interacting emerging from quantum particles emeging from quantum fields... Maybe emerging from strings or a simulation? We don't know. It seems to me we also don't know how to tell we've finally reached the bottom of it, but what we have sounds pretty solid.

In a mind-first view it seems that this stack is upside-down, with a consciousness giving rise to a brain in a world with its objects which are made of molecules coming to existence upon observation (that is, chemistry would be a top layer after conscience further inspecting it), which are ruled by physics etc. Except this cause-and-consequence relation is not clear to me. Like you said:

To me, it appears obvious to me that I am having a conscious experience from which the physical world and all its laws and processes, emerge.

How would this work if, from your perspective, I'm also conscious and not a p-zombie? Do I give rise to the world, or do you? Do we all collectively create a single world from our consciousness in a "Sandman's Dream of a Thousand Cats" way? And if we're all p-zombies except you, why bother arguing with us? (not throwing shade btw, I'm just interested in your point of view).

To me physicalism looks like a flame graph with physics at the bottom and minds at the tips of the flames, with less simpler things giving rise to multiple complex things, while mind-first looks like an icicle graph (assuming multiple consciousness) or an upside down triangle (assuming a single consciousness), with physics at the top (all "graphs" putting cause at the bottom and effect on top).

So every restaurant you go to, you head to the back to run a purity test on the political beliefs and “happiness” of the people making your food to make sure they line up exactly with what you believe?

Does their argument gets invalidated if they don't verify *every* restaurant ever? Nobody has the time nor the resources to follow their moral standards with 100% precision, but if we're doing our best I'd argue we can still take that moral stance.

Recently a slave labour scheme was dismantled in my country in which some wineries were keeping slaves to produce grape juice. The companies were on the news, and although I do love some grape juice I will never ever buy from them again. Do I check *every* single source of the products I consume? Of course no. Can they eventually do some marketing tricks and fool me into buying from them again? Maybe. But I do my best and I feel like this is sufficient to claim this is a good moral stance nonetheless.

You mentioned experience, but it's not clear to me if you mean that it's a requirement for "actual understanding." Is this what you're saying? If so, does that mean a male gynecologist doesn't have an "actual understanding" of menstrual cycles and menopause?

I think about astronomers and the things they know about stars that are impossible to experience even from afar, like sizes and temperatures. No one has ever seen a black hole with their own eyes, but they read a lot about it, collected data, made calculations, and now they can have meaningful discussions with their peers and come to new conclusions from "processing and correlating" new data with all this information in their minds. That's "actual understanding" to me.

One could say they are experiencing this information exchange, but I'd argue we can say the same about the translator in the chinese room. He does not have the same understanding of chinese as us humans, associating words to memories and feelings and other human experiences, but he does know that a given symbol evokes the use of other specific symbols. Some sequences require the usage of lots of symbols, some are somewhat ambiguous, and some require him to fetch a symbol that he hasn't used in a long time, maybe doesn't even know where he stored it. To me this looks a lot like the processes that happen inside our minds, with the exception that his form of "understanding" and the experiences that this evokes to him are completely alien to us. Just like an AGI would possibly be.

I'm not confortable looking at the translator's point of view as if he's the analogous to a mind. To me he's the correlator, the process inside our minds that makes these associations. This is not us, it's not under our conscious control, from our perspectives it just happens, and we know today it's a result of our neural networks. We emerge somehow from this process. Similarly, it seems to me that the experience of knowing chinese belongs to the whole room, not the guy handling symbols. It's a weird conclusion, I still don't know what to think of it though...

I had the same experience with Java and its looong lines of AbstractFactoryFactoryBuilders. Tabs + spaces offered the best of both worlds, and enabling whitespace visibility.

In the end it doesn't matter what's my preferred way of indenting code, the hardest part is always making people agree on it. So whenever a new project starts and the team needs to define code styling, we go with the language/IDE defaults. Anything else requires IDE setup and attention to indentation, which is too much to ask for when people barely pay attention to code quality.

This is not about protecting the files you share, it's about spammers abusing the file sharing mechanism to send you notifications. THEY share a file with you in order to trigger a notification and there's no way to block this.

I also have been receiving lots of these lately. I don't understand why "blocking everyone that's not in your contact list" is not a feature.

This thread below on Google Drive Help Center was closed with a response that you can now block a specific user — which is useless against a horde of bots.

https://support.google.com/drive/thread/58636526/how-to-bloc...

That's usually the case, but I was pleasantly surprised to read this book on my Kindle. The A5 format is quite readable, if you don't mind some of the tiny font size (I actually like it).

You're trying to convert the 3D world as we know it to 2D, but there's no such restriction. There are other constructs in 2D that can be used for the same purposes.

Take Game of life for example. It doesn't matter that you cannot make circuits without crossing wires in 2D, Game of Life is turing complete anyways. A computer based on GoL is totally unlike our 3D computers, but can have the same capabilities. There's no reason to think that it would be any different with biology.

Or you can try comparing our 3D world with a hypothetical higher dimension. Our intestines are hollow cilinders, stable in 3D but not suited for 4D — in 4D you can look inside a 3D cilinder just like we can look inside a 2D-sphere (a circle) from our 3D perspective. A 4D creature would probably have a very different, more efficient, structure for this use case (food containment and nutrient absorption), which they probably wouldn't be able to just translate to 3D.

Or you could just count the number of times their names are mentioned... Except neither approach really represents character importance accurately. Why just go the naive route when you can extract more information from your data by using a more complex approach?

The article actually counters your point exactly:

"For example, Arya Stark, Sansa’s younger sister, has the third most chapters with 34, but ranks behind Sansa in terms of network importance."

Welcome to the people who want to participate in serious discussions. You still have threads, and whole subreddits for that matter, with jokes. But before this tag, people who wanted a joke-free discussion were unable to do so on Reddit, and had to dig through piles of puns and jokes to get some thoughtful comments. Now we have space for both groups.

I thought they were talking about dichromatism, I missed the part where they say it fixes anomalous trochromatism only. It makes sense now, thanks.

But there’s still the concern that wearing a colored filter while taking the D15 test will alter the relative brightness of the chips, providing a context cue that can help subjects score higher.

I'm confused about this statement: isn't the whole point of these glasses to provide such clues? I may be more knowledgeable about the subject than the average Joe (I like reading about it), or I may be completely wrong (I'm no pro), but it's obvious to me that real color vision is indeed impossible without gene therapy -- you can't show to the brain what the eyes can't detect, at least not through the eyes. Do they claim it provides real full color vision? I don't even think this is testable, for that matter (qualia etc).

By "swarm of megastructures" and "technology designed to catch energy from the star" I think he's referring to a Dyson Swarm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere#Dyson_swarm

[...] especially because you can't type it anymore without waiting

This was my thought when I saw this mapping for the first time, and when I started customizing my vimrc I opted for using caps lock as well. It didn´t take long for me to change that and start using kj instead -- in the end it was more common for me to type constants in all-caps than typing "Reykjavik."

He didn't have the right not to make a decision. As a responsible citizen he had the obligation take action and decide how to approach the issue, and he did the best he could as a single individual. Deciding who to trust is doable; filtering all the information on those docs by himself is not.

Yes, he could have disclosed the obvious things, but how would that work out on the long term? Would he be able to address by himself all the questions that would follow up? How much information would he be able to disclose? Too much information and he'd risk disclosing legitimate operations, too little information and he'd soon get discredited.

Are you claiming that he could handle all of this by himself? Because unless you're claiming it, you'll have to agree with me that he would have to trust someone at some point. And calling Greenwald a so-called respectable journalist doesn't make justice to the reputation he built. I'm curious to know how would you select a better fitted person to this job.

I also don't think that comparing this to privacy violation is a valid comparison. The government is not a person, you're not violating any civil rights by getting these documents.

I'm confused about what kind of straight answer you're expecting. Why isn't this considered a straight answer?

Snowden didn't decide which document's to publish - journalists did. He handed over a trove of information, among which was damning evidence that our government was/is doing something they shouldn't, and gave journalists the responsibility to publish relevant documents appropriately.

Had he pre-selected which documents to hand over to the journalists, how would this be any different than if he just published them by his own? Snowden knew that he was not supposed to handle this task alone by passing his judgement on these documents by himself, and that he needed someone to help him judge what to disclose and what not to disclose, so he delegated this responsibility to journalists with a reputation he could trust. IMO he was as responsible as one could be: he didn't handle this trouble all by himself, he didn't let any biases he might've had affect the decisions, and he delegated the task at hand properly to american citizens (this is important, he was dealing with national security after all) he judged to be trustworthy. It just boils down to teamwork.

Selecting only the documents he thought described wrongdoings would put too much of his perspective and his biases on the end result. Too much for a single man to decide.

I don't know if the documentary Into Eternity[0] is related to this task force, but it was the first time I was exposed to the idea of preserving information for thousands of years. Fascinated stuff. It never ocurred to me how hard it would be to instruct future generations to stay away of a nuclear deposit after so much time.

[0] http://intoeternity.co.uk/about/index.php

The same Wikipedia page on molecules that says they have "two or more atoms held together" also says this in the next paragraph:

In the kinetic theory of gases, the term molecule is often used for any gaseous particle regardless of its composition. According to this definition, noble gas atoms are considered molecules despite being composed of a single non-bonded atom.

The wiki[1] says that

"Recent revelations have called into question the integrity of some of the implementations of basic cryptographic functions and devices used to secure communications on the Internet. There are serious questions about algorithms and about implementations of those algorithms in software and particularly hardware."

I'm curious about that, does anybody here know about these recent revelations? I understand the feeling, but I don't remember seeing any news about the security of HSM recently, or ever actually.

[1] http://wiki.cryptech.is -- see JoachimS' comment

    One thing to keep in mind with HTTP/2 server push is that a server can only
    send a push in response to a client request.

I never took the time to try WebSockets, so please forgive me if this question doesn't make sense, but, does HTTP/2 supersedes WebSockets? I'm under the impression that HTTP/2 covers all the WebSockets' use cases, is this a correct observation?

Time is a limited resource. As much as I'd love to learn everything that I find interesting, I can't find the time to learn all these subjects. The criteria I use to decide when to learn something or not are not like geoka9's, but I still have to ask myself why.

Isn't it the other way around? You are assuming that we can't observe nor measure an experience while noselasd is leaving the question open (we don't have any proof in favor or against it). The burden of proof is not his/hers.

We may one day be able to measure experience, but we don't know yet. Until then science is the best tool we have.

And this complexity doesn't end there because, in order to deal with these heavy employee taxes, it's not uncommon for IT companies to ask employees to open their own one-man companies to avoid these taxes. Now having a B2B relation, the company is free from these taxes and mandatory benefits, and the employee now deals with it declaring himself as the only employee and paying himself minimum wage on paper, receiving the rest of his salary as company's profit. Or the scheme they call flex, which is to pay a great deal of the salary as extras (even up to 80%) because these do not get taxed. The employee, in turn, needs to declare expenditures to his contractor in order to receive this extra share.

The real meaning of "being smart enough with your accounting" seems to me mostly finding these loopholes in the tax structure to avoid leaking money to the government.

Isn't that how software is meant to work?

Different schools of thought. Some say software should be able to handle all your data without having to ask you everytime it shifts a bit around — convenient, but with the implicit cost of needing to trust said software with all your info. Others say that software shouldn't grab any of your info without your consent, which gives you control over your data but is terribly inconvenient.

I put myself on the latter group, but I confess being called paranoid. In my defense, G+ grabbed my profile pic from an old blogspot I had about monkeys back when the apps weren't a single profile. It took me a while to find out it was more of an accident than a bad joke, but by then it was too late to recover my trust.

Another big factor for the communities' explosion was their misuse. The way communities were displayed in your profile page leaked enough metadata that people started using them as badges instead. Some time around 2006 people started creating communities with nonsense names, and it was not unusual to see people with hundreds of them on their profile. Things like "I cry everytime I see Mufasa die" or "Nobody expects the spanish inquisition" were the kinds of titles used in order to display your sense of humor.

In some sense this is akin to Tumblr's hashtags we see today, in which people abused the metadata channel to convey real meaning.

I usually say that I don't have trouble sleeping, my trouble is with changing states :)

I seldom go to bed in time because I hate to lay there trying to get asleep. Wanting to make more use of my day also doesn't help; I don't get home before 7:30pm, and I don't want to just dine and go to bed...

Then comes the morning and I just can't wake up, even after 9, 10hs. I put my alarm clock far away from my bed because I used to just turn it off and keep sleeping. It doesn't help that much though: I "wake up", walk to it, turn it off and go back to under my sheets. "Wake up" as in I'm walking but I'm not totally conscious. It's like I'm drunk, I'll always find a nonsense reason to justify going back to bed, like "hell, I need to go back to my bed now, or it will get too light and float away"

Lately the only thing I've been feeling ashamed of is the amount of code I DIDN'T write. I think this is mostly because I fear feeling ashamed of my code after it's running or, even worse, after it's public. I don't know...

I'm the epithome of analysis paralysis. Being ashamed of my own code is my next milestone. :)