jjaredsimpson

I feel like Alive should count even though its not new material. It's so good and different take on their own tracks.

Since the stars are near 1 solar mass and each has <10d orbital period, I think pairs should be nearer than Mercury to our sun which has 88d period.

Then the paper gives the separations of the systems as 18AU for the inner quadruple and 250AU for the whole system. That would put the inner system within the orbit of Uranus and the whole system larger than our solar system which has Kuiper belt at 50AU.

does the first half really end at 30:00 or is it really 29:59:99...9?

those are the same number.

Is this argument by syntactic substitution?

This isn't an original thought. The president said this out loud. It certainly isn't brave to do life value accounting.

Why do you assume these same people are somehow "professional" when no one is looking.

The system operates as it is designed to.

I think the an easy way to think about it is by thinking about function types, instead of collection types.

Func Arg Val represents a function type from Args to Vals

consider foo(func : Func a b)

The argument to the function foo must be assignable to (a subtype of) Func a b

What are those subtypes? We can find out by considering expressions involving the argument

bidentifer = func(avalue)

so func must be an object whose type is compatible with assignments from the avalue, so its argument type must be a supertype of a

while the assignment to bidentifier implies the return value must be assignable to the return type so it must be a subtype

therefore the subtypes of Func a b are the set of types Func (super a) (sub b)

this is the origin of the phrase be generous in what you accept and specific about what you return

thinking about whether bikes are vehicles and such doesn't really clarify anything. you have to actually think about the expressions you are trying to construct

Moving down the Func type hierarchy moves you up the Argument type hierarchy (contra) but moves you down the Return type hierarchy (co)

If physics ranges over the reals

I thought this was ruled out by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound

What if I'm too stupid to introspect?

Kinda absurd. You can setup a one time email, and one time facebook if you really want to segregate.

Sure you win on principle, but that's just the same as losing.

I only zone out in meetings with no focus. Provide an agenda which describes what you want to talk about. This helps me identify my value and not begin to immediately wonder how long this aimless meeting will last. Describe the problem this meeting wants to solve and why you can't solve it by yourself. People schedule meetings and expect attendees to do the work on making the meeting successful.

It's not my responsibility not to be bored, it's the organizers responsibility to be engaging.

I know right, dogs are really boring too, have you ever tried to engage one in conversation?

I thought the name looked familiar. I'm not a doctor and I only googled for 10 minutes. I tore my achilles last year. I would never take this drug. I hope I'm off base.

Wiki breadcrumbs

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-Aminoquinoline

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinolone_antibiotic#Tendons

Reminds me of DFW

the constant gnawing sense of having had and lost some infinite thing.

It's key to include false starts and promising paths that dead end. Learning to explore unknown solution spaces and refine the domain of the problem itself are critical skills in any open ended problem.

Spending an entire school lifetime being taught to "solve" "problems" and then being confronted with a world where problems aren't defined and solutions are ad-hoc and piecemeal is a rude awakening.

The strategies that made us a good students and made us feel good and smart in school aren't the same strategies that make for a good employee and those strategies set new devs up to fail when they can't "see the answer" to the current jira ticket they are tasked with.

Raise your hands, contribute to the spirit bomb.

I believe we are alone in Milky Way.

Self assembling replicators from some civilization should have colonized and cataloged every star system over billion year time scales.

It's inconceivable that no intelligent space faring civilization would have thought to do this.

How much of the leading edge of astronomy is ground based, vs space based? Are they complementary or is space based going to eventually assume any and all roles ground based could?

Electron hate is an entry in the genre, "modern software is inefficient and bloated because devs are lazy"

This genre will never want for new entries because, devs will keep getting things done and critics will keep complaining.

Electron hate is a moral argument, "devs are wasteful." It's not a technical argument. People confuse their ability to conceive of software which has the same behavior as shipped software, but improves on arbitrary figures of merit, excepting "date of RTM."

I dunno about best, but History of Rome podcast is excellent if you like podcasts as a format. Covers 750bc up to 450ad.

The coverage of punic wars, late republic, early empire, crisis of the third century are my favorite arcs.

How could it be the best comment when it doesn't even address OPs question?

OP asked for "X"

This reply says, "dont X, X is bad"

It is the same as every off topic top comment.

9/11 and the financial crisis seemed pretty earthquake as well.

More like used to code for anti-business, whereas presently codes for nativist.

But how do you know the ideas were/are great? Rejection isn't evidence of quality.

Biological systems climb up energy gradients and outcompete other systems.

Artificial systems should be able to climb given a suitable gradient. I think the hard part of AGI is going to be designing the environment and gradient to produce "intention", I don't think the hard part is studying the human mind to find out the "secret of intelligence"

The goal of AGI isn't silicon minds isomorphic to human minds at each level of interpretation. Just the existence of an intelligent system.

Reading the AI go FOOM debate solidified a lot of the mushy parts of my "singularitianism"

I think the linchpin of my belief is recursive self improvement. I think machine intelligences are a different kind of substance with different dynamics than the ones we typically encounter.

I don't think someone will compile the first AGI and presto there is it. I think a long running system of processes will interact and rewrite its own code to produce something, which eventually a reasonable boundary could be drawn to distinguish the system and anyone interacting with the system would say: "this thing is intelligent, the most intelligent thing on the planet". It would have instant access to all written knowledge, essentially unbounded power to compute new facts and information and model the world to as accurate of an approximation as needed to produce high confidence utterances.

I just don't see how a system like that couldn't come into existence one day. Issues around timelines are completely unknowable to me. But I would put a distribution of something like I would be surprised if it happened in the next 50 years and shocked if it didn't happen within the next 1000. Very fuzzy, but it "feels" inevitable.

If a collection of unthinking cells can coordinate and produce the feeling of conscious experience then I can't see what would stop silicon from producing similar behavior without many bounds inherent in biological systems.

https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/318

Java epsilon gc is a no op gc

If most anonymous speech were like The Federalist Papers then I would agree. I think the mean-value of anonymous speech is either zero or negative. I'm aware this is a feeling and not something I can prove.

This example is fresh in my mind but might be crude

Every public bathroom is a mess. Urine on seats and the floor. But I've never gone to someone's house and seen their bathroom in that condition.

People act badly when no one is watching and they have reason to believe their badness won't be discovered.

I'm skeptical of the value of anonymity to the collective where it's obvious to see the value to the individual

That's my understanding as well. Point spy at a WPF app and you see one top level HWND which is just hosting a DX context