canoebuilder

In a lot of ways, the statistical processing is a novel form of information retrieval. So the issue is somewhat like if 20 years ago Google was indexing the web, then decided to just rehost all the indexed content on their own servers and monetize the views instead linking to the original source of the content.

I do follow one photographer who manages to do it

Link?

Also to your photos, if you post them, and care to share.

If reading something is hurting your feelings, you can stop reading it.

Twitter even provides mute, block, and whatnot functionality to prevent specified things from even showing up in your line of sight to begin with. And if the app is really bothering you, you can always set it down and go outside, take a walk, meet somebody new, do something that will put a smile on your face on your deathbed.

Lumping in mean comments online, with actual abuse is approaching risible. Words have meanings, we shouldn’t dilute or distort them.

By Twitter “not taking action,” sounds like your friend is upset that he or she can no longer co-opt the proprietors of the site into enacting punitive measures on people who draw his or her ire.

Maybe some mean things were said or whatever, but at the end of the day it’s just text on a screen isn’t it? And there’s a lot more to life than text on a screen, isn’t there?

It’s also weird how you mention the technical functioning of the site, then bring up the “Trust & Safety Org” when the legacy of “Trust & Safety” is a small cabal with extremist views arbitrarily deciding what information to censor and suppress based on their own viewpoints, whims, and influence from government agencies.

That has nothing to do with the technical functioning of the site which is a matter of reproducible, specifiable, determinate functions implemented in computer code to produce a useful product. The kind of thing that really turns the mind of an autist on.

P.S. Not to be too blasé about your friend, mean words can be an issue, especially an ongoing pattern, but anonymous strangers online seems like less of an issue than irl, and was this really an issue where block or mute wasn’t sufficient? How so?

Would you mind going into more details about what you see as the OLED downsides? Is it just Apple’s variant, or the broader product category?

Why did you do this thing 2 weeks ago?

vs

Why didn’t you do this thing 2 weeks ago that you were under no legal obligation to do?

Seems like a significant and valid distinction even if what they communicate to the intended audience is largely the same.

“Largely the same” because in the second case it would be possible that forgetting, or some other obstacle to resigning occurred.

What is your source of info here? Can you be more specific? Who are they?

Human habitation and influence on the landscape in the Amazon seems far more extensive in scope and duration than previously thought, based on recent discoveries.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Amazon+mounds+archaeology&t=ffip&i...

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Amazon+australasian+dna&t=ffip&ia=...

The significance of the second link is ancient peoples further north and in other parts of the Americas don’t share this genetic link, indicating a longer timeline of human habitation in the region than previously thought.

Who are they?

In considering these things, affordances must be made to the new abilities made possible by the computational tools now at our disposal.

Following your line of reasoning if it is perfectly legal to walk into a coffee shop and sit down and listen to what the people next to me are talking about, commit it to memory, even make notes about it, does it then follow that it should be perfectly legal, reasonable, and acceptable for a govt agency or some other organization to put microphones everywhere to record what everyone is talking about, then feed all this data into various databases and modeling systems?

Reciting something in a park is different than selling a copyrighted print of something in a park when you don’t hold the copyright. Which is much closer to what the NYT is accusing OpenAI of.

The training data not “existing” in the model is interesting, but at some point, a distinction without a difference.

If I hire an autistic savant to go to a library and read all the books, then I set up a book selling service where whenever people want to buy a book I have my savant employee type out the book for them, is it then going to pass muster in a copyright case if I tell the judge “It’s okay actually, because the books don’t actually exist in my employee’s brain, merely neuronal encodings of them.” ?

If I have a copyrighted image on which I don’t hold the copyright. But I want to start selling it to people, is it cool if I just run it through a lossless compression algorithm, thereby generating a new encoding of the information and then sell this new encoding along with the software and command to reverse the compression?

Regarding the open source stuff, there I think you might find more favor to your arguments.

But the stuff we are seeing within commercial enterprises like OpenAI and Midjourney is clearly copyright infringement.

And I don’t see copyright law being insane in these cases.

You seem to have misunderstood what I was meaning to convey. I wasn’t even meaning to say much in the way of the virtues or not of piracy, or the legitimacy of copyright in it’s present form.

If Google, YouTube, Dropbox didn’t exist you could still share files with your friends.

Sharing a file with a friend and him benefiting in some way from that is a different thing entirely than massive centralizing corporations flouting copyright rules to benefit commercially and increase their power.

More of the former, less of the latter.

Without Google, YouTube, and Dropbox, copyrighted material would just be where the copyright holder deemed and authorized it to be. (save some amount of piracy of course)

It would actually be more in line with the “Internet idea” of a decentralized network, not a massive hub and spoke arrangement.

Saying, “Hey, we already have some big corporations where copyright infringement plays some role in their business model, why not add a few more in the form of “Open”AI, and whoever else.” Is not a good argument.

The centralized server farms and behemoth corporations are in many ways representative of what the commercial internet has become, but are not a fulfillment of the original “internet idea.”

Are you(or anybody) using the Obsidian iOS mobile app with git for sync/versioning? Is that possible?

Hmm

What’s your sense about SETI or the Fermi paradox, if a signal becomes so vastly diluted just within our solar system?

I’m sure the SETI people have thought about this and made various calculations, but with the inverse square law and the vastness of space, maybe “needle in a haystack” is optimistic.

Is it the wrong model to think that anything but maybe a galaxy scale civilization is just going to have it’s signals more or less totally dissolved into seemingly random cosmic fluctuations, relative to our sensors/receivers at least?

Interesting thanks. It may not be representative of a majority but it seems pretty widespread, and it is representative of a type of problem led lights are prone to, at least right now.

I’ve had issues with household LEDs that needed replacing well before expected lifespan.

I also saw this article some time back discussing issues with LEDs. https://nymag.com/strategist/article/led-light-bulbs-investi...

I’m not against LEDs, but the usage and implementation in a lot of cases to date could be better.

Amen, but alas we’re not there

What is troublesome is that many places, that many of us probably hail from, “were there” not so long ago, and it was destroyed by duplicitous, malicious political and cultural actors.

Having “safe streets” is not a pipe dream. Indeed not having them is a symptom of people trying to destroy our societies.

If you need more light clarity, light your own phone torch or something.

Good point! In this case of nighttime lighting infrastructure it has become so vastly overbuilt as if to save people “the trouble” of these simple targeted solutions.

Cheaper to operate

I’ve seen in a number of places where the led lights have rapidly degraded, putting out really unpleasant bluish, purplish hues, as if the super bright daytime like sports field lighting everywhere wasn’t already bad enough. So this rapid degradation necessitating replacement no doubt eats into some of the cost savings.

Also, “cheaper to operate” mostly seems to have turned into “pump out more photons” instead banking the savings and maintaining nighttime lighting at non eyeball scorching levels.

Last sentence is a fine idea, it is also possible to move toward developing a society where “potential attackers” is a thought much more distant in people’s minds.

Very excited to see the headline, but the “hack” was highly underwhelming, disappointing, disconcerting.

We need to be reducing light pollution for the benefit of humans and other life forms, not just telescope machines.

The solution is less light, and more targeted, well thought out, aesthetically pleasing use of it. Warmer color temperature, shining it just where and when needed and reevaluating just how much illumination is wise and called for at night.

https://twitter.com/tlowdon/status/1496894355621113857

This guy documented it really well.

You'll have to sign in to look at his other posts.

Just search "uk infection rates" or some such on his profile.

from:tlowdon uk infection rates

That’s an interesting point of reference. I have thought about what a big change it was to go from a sheet music and live performance only world to a world with audio recordings.

You’ve identified the early electromagnetic signals era, then think about the huge expansion in bandwidth those signals have undergone. From a handful of local radio stations and a finite number of grooved vinyl(or whatever medium) at your local shops. To a virtually infinite arrangement of pixels on your screen, waveforms coming out of your speakers. A few taps on your local signal processor and you can have virtually anything delivered to your door, or undertake any number of your other day to day affairs.

I too think it is interesting to look back in time using the generation metric. Also interesting to think about a generation still alive, those born in the 1920s and 30s and the huge changes in the state of the world seen in those lifetimes alone, and what that may portend for younger generations.

Isn’t there some sequence of communication or something between Hal and Satoshi that makes it seem fairly implausible they were the same person?

I’m not particularly up to speed here, is there some substantial evidence that seems to indicate that in fact they were one and the same?

I know this can be a hot button, but some genuine intellectual curiosity in here. Some information I don’t think is widely known, as well as inducing some thinking about how societies operate with regard to the legal system, the constitution, regulatory capture, etc.

If someone took vaccine thinking it will make them immune in the sense of avoiding infection altogether it's their problem/misperception.

Seems a little harsh to blame people themselves for being wrong if simply for the reason of taking at their words authorities like the president of the USA, the head of the cdc, the head of the nih, and many more on down the line.

Oops, yeah when I said mRNA shots, I meant the spike protein ones, as those are currently the only ones. I didn’t mean to imply a whole class of products.

I would think if there were to be anymore there would be much more skepticism and questions though, given that so many got these under the pretence of not getting Covid and then they still got Covid and in many cases some unpleasant side effects from the shots to boot.

Is there a study with the control group having not been “uncontrolled” and thus potential for further longer term data?

It’s not a rumour, it’s just an issue of semantics you’re debating here.

I’m calling a situation where a new gene is introduced into the body by means of injection and this new gene in the overall body system causes a new behaviour in cells, “experimental gene modification.”

There’s a set of all the genes in your body, then an mRNA injection occurs, now there is a new gene added to the set of all the genes in your body at least temporarily. This new gene is added with the intent to provoke a response.

I’m not saying it alters the genes you are born with from your parents.

Call it experimental gene therapy or something like that if you like, a distinction without much difference I think.

I don’t know about in 2021, the countries I’m talking about were initially fully on board like most western countries, as far as I know. Starting with Denmark, now I think most of Northern Europe and Australia have largely restricted use owing to the “efficacy rate” having settled at somewhere between 0% and -n%. The host of negative side effects and the utter absurdity of ever having mass injected these not well understood, no long term safety data things into healthy populations in the first place.

Probably more countries than that if you have a look around.

The modification is an addition not an edit, if that helps to clarify.

Putting this particular mRNA, a gene, into your body modifies the set of genes in your body, because now there is a new one, and it evokes a response in a way that eating the dna, also genes, of asparagus or a cow does not.

The point stands, at that point, fear mongering aside, the Covid risk profile was pretty well understood, the risk profile of the experimental gene therapy was not.

Regardless of what you want to call it, it turns out to have been a bad idea for reasons of “original antigenic sin”, immune system disruptions due to heightened levels of IgG4 or some other factors leading to injected people becoming more susceptible to the virus, and the host of issues that may or may not be tied to the gene modifying but to the lipid delivery mechanism or something else, heart issues, fertility disruptions, shingles, Guillain–Barré syndrome, etc. etc.

Whatever terminology you want to use the winning move was to not play the game.

Do you know how many countries that once used them have now barred the use of the mRNA injections for at least a portion of their population?

—————

IgG4 Antibodies Induced by Repeated Vaccination May Generate Immune Tolerance to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37243095/

The modification is an addition, not an edit, if that clarifies things for you.

Injecting mRNA, a gene, into your body modifies the set of genes in your body. Due to the new gene in your body your cells produce a protein they otherwise would not have. The reason anybody ever thought this was a good idea was to mitigate against an overblown risk from infection by a novel virus. People’s wariness toward the virus was understandable though given the many strange questions around it and the bizarre, unprecedented, inhumane, response provoked in many countries.

This whole notion of putting a gene in the body to evoke a response doesn’t haven’t any long track record of understanding behind it, therefore terming it experimental makes sense.

Thus, experimental gene modification.

I’d guess there might be some fancy statistics term to describe the intuitive calculation for some of us high iq critical thinkers that said don’t add on a potentially very large upside of risk onto something for the purposes of possibly mitigating a very small range of downside risk.

And now with all the complications arising from the shots that intuition was clearly correct. Even if all the issues hadn’t become apparent it would still be the right call for those with that limited range of downside risk from the virus to have not tacked on additional unknown risk from the injections.

Do you know how many countries that once used the mRNA injections have now barred their use for some or most of their populations?

The studies were only placebo controlled for the initial run of a handful of weeks.

After which the controls were given the mRNA injections, eliminating the possibility any study of longer term issues that may arise.

Though now we have come to see quite a few complications arising that weren’t picked up in the initial studies. To the point that nearly all countries where the mRNA shots were used, aside from the USA, have barred their further use from some, or the majority of their populations.

Have you followed any of this?

For those of us who have, I think it’s caused a bit of reevaluation in many things we had assumed to be largely noble endeavors, public health, things involving placebo controlled, double blind studies as you say, etc.

I think some of us have learned that when there are other factors at play such as profit motives, and large scale social engineering and experimenting it pays to look beyond the messaging of political parties when making medical decisions that have the potential to affect the rest of our lives, or suddenly end them.

I guess it would be a kind of hard cognitive dissonance inducing thing to do though, if even “by accident” the people on the other side who’s opinions you find so objectionable that you’re thinking about wars of separation with, turned out to have some valid points that if you had considered them may have in fact saved you some trouble in the form of heart issues, or lowered sperm counts, or period disruptions, or a host of other potential issues.