briffid

Is Musk's red car a spaceship btw? Because if we are able to send such stuff to space, other intelligent beings would most probably do the same. Or they are more intelligent?

So is it a spaceship or not?

Why is that in English speaking world a joke is almost always a pun?

Just look at the Java installer: What is Java? Java is everywhere!

I don't get the point. The article says that if you "somewhat" measure, then you lose "somewhat" from the wavelike nature. So the photon is a wave by X%, and a particle by 100-X%?

I had a similar feeling. But I think this is indeed a glimpse to the intrinsic structure of reality itself, not just a promise of seeing reality. Like we can have a blink of turning around in Plato's cave. I think the patterns of the Mandelbrot set is a similar thing. And there are only a handful of other things that shows the very basic structure of reality. And the encouraging thing is that it seems the core of reality is not an infinite void.

Recording yourself is not a violation, only publishing on Youtube. Content generated with LLMs are not a violation. Publishing the content you generated might be.

Quotation is fair use in all sensible copyright system. An LLM will mostly be able to quote anything, and should be. Quotation is not derived work. LLMs are not stealing copyrighted work. They just show that Harry Potter is in English and a mostly logical story. If someone is stabbed, they will die in most stories, that's not copyrightable. If you have an engine that knows everything, it will be able to quote everything.

I'm so tired of the enforced password changes, that I just write them on a post-it note now.

The website frustratingly assumes 4K display?

An example of an actual grammar, like arithmetic expressions, would be helpful.

People are usually interested in the transients.

There is scientific consensus that Jesus was a historical figure, so the book referred here is probably fiction.

Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind describes this ín details.

Plus what must have been lost in 500 years, all photonegative pictures, fragments, descriptions, recipes, any references for such imagery etc. It is very strange that this is the only image that remained. And an image of a nude Jesus from the back. For which no other instance is known anywhere.

A face impression would be very distorted when moving from a 3D face to a 2D sheet. So it is not an impression.

Yes, the wikipedia article makes an argumentation error. Even if the Pray Codex doesn't show the shroud, it contains a very unique depiction of a nude Jesus. So the painter of the codex with high probability have seen the exact same picture as what is on the Shroud now. This doesn't prove that the shroud is earlier than the Pray codex, but this is something an unbiased scientist have to try to answer. I find it very annoying that all these very scientific-looking articles never try to explain how the hell is it possible that the Pray codex contains a depiction of the dead Jesus in a way, of which the first known depiction is from a century later in a photonegative form. Not to mention the other ridiculous arguments, that the shroud is one from the enormous amount of medieval forgeries. Where are all the other photonegative shrouds and pictures. I personally don't think that a supernatural creator omniscient etc god would create a photo of his resurrecting son, but I am really annoyed by all that bad science around the shroud. Ok, the C14 is real, because they told so (yeah, science never tries to find contradicting evidence, never challenges previous knowledge or belief...) but then you could still use Occam's razor to find simple explanations for like the Pray Codex depiction. At least please try to explain, why the drawing there is so different to all other drawings of Jesus in that era.

The C14 dating is one evidence, and there are plenty of contradicting evidence for the 14th century dating. But my main point is that there is at least doubt for the 14th date, and any proper scientific approach should at least mention the codex.

The best explanation to what the codex depicts, is the shroud. Which could be a copy of an older shroud e.g., but the C14 dating has its flaws (burnt material etc.).

The 14th century theorem has long been debunked, as the Pray-codex https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pray_Codex contains strong evidence that the shroud was already known in the 12th century.

Bulgarian made, through a one-person trade intermediary for a Taiwanese company. The Bulgarian co is owned by a Norwegian btw.

I have many accounts with the same user names, and they don't get overwritten. There might be some design flaw somewhere, but it's surely not what the article states, ie. that you cannot have the same username on different sites.

All the cancers were diagnosed between 2000-2019 and they didn't check the incidence by year but by birth date of victims. So the testing should not affect, unless diagnostic procedures are 2 times more effective in young people.

But JS Bach apparently did love those modern sounds, see BWV 542/I But indeed it doesn't make much sense to apply jazz theory on classical or early music.

Depressed, stressed, anxious - these are temporary or treatable conditions. The diversity is for innate and permanent traits.

That's a good point. Eliminating commute let me play with my children after school. Even started to have a pizza together for lunch. Started to have lunch almost every day with my wife, instead of my colleagues or looking at our phones in the canteen.

Plus according to Jonathan Haidt in Happiness Hypothesis, commuting, noise and lack of control are among the most significant things that make people unhappy. All of them are manageable at home. And also these are rarely taken into the discussion.

All genetic algorithms are created by conscious intelligent beings. So I'm more interested in how a genetic algorithm develops by chance, with what probability. I guess typing monkeys wouldn't create genetic algorithms in the existing universe's timeframe even if the monkeys themselves have some (also random) fitness function that by chance has the ability to replace dumb monkeys with smarter ones.

Sure, but my question is what does evolution try? If it is full random, then it will TRY much better and much worse mutations as well, so will go back and forth, and will take a lot of time. If it is not fully random, e.g. it is not not able to try big changes, then what is the thing that actually determines what is "feasible", BEFORE trying it out.

I learnt that evolution is random mutations of genes + natural selection (selecting the successful random trials). If you have 10^14 generations on 3 billion years, always use up the mass of the Earth, 10^28g, that is 10^40 cells, so you have 10^54 cells randomly trying the best permutation of DNA, that's suprisingly few to balance the vast amount of possible permutations. 4^100000 being 10^60205