HN user

polarix

690 karma

Greg

[ my public key: https://keybase.io/gregp; my proof: https://keybase.io/gregp/sigs/QgiIp98x2U7msN3u5ALaQ3QN24GIIjLHJKrbs7su73E ]

Posts1
Comments306
View on HN

Sure, those headlines are misleading.

But all of those other headlines are wrong and misleading as well, in their own way.

The "court"(s) cannot "block" Trump from doing anything. They don't control the military. All they can do is "say" something about the "legality" of the actions of the commander in chief of the military. The first two headlines that (according to the link) "beg to mislead" are closer to accuracy on this dimension -- the courts said something.

Purpose is a really helpful way of organizing thought about the world.

But “purposeful” does not mean “having to do with the concept of purpose”, so “teleological” ends up being a pretty useful word. Despite the smell of old books it carries.

This has been available for a while but it's great to see some acknowledgement especially since the most recent data set was stuck in 2019 for a while.

Here are the datasets: http://download.kiwix.org/zim/stack_exchange/

It's not clear to me why the data set shrank between 2019/3 and 2022/6; was something excluded? Compression improvements?

stackoverflow.com_en_all_2019-02.zim 2019-03-12 19:53 134G

stackoverflow.com_en_all_2022-05.zim 2022-06-17 12:36 75G

I see the number of children a couple has as a vote on how many people should exist on earth. If you have 0 or 1 child as a couple, you are voting that there should be fewer people. If you have 2 children, you're voting that there should be about the same number of people. If you have more than 2 children as a couple, you're voting that there should be more people on earth.

With that context, I can clearly see why nobody in a city would want to have more than 2 children.

I liked "The Friendly Orange Glow: The Untold Story of the PLATO System and the Dawn of Cyberculture" which sounds related... I hadn't heard about PLATO before, and the book was strongly redolent of "online culture".

If "profit" is defined as: "generating more value than is consumed in the production process"...

Then yes, we damn well better demand that profit be the correct goal for every action regardless of organizational structure.

If our system is distorted to inaccurately measure profit locally, without properly accounting for negative externalities, then that's a legitimate problem, but the way to solve it is by factoring those hidden costs back into the profit calculation, not giving up on "profitability" properly defined.

Right.

We've added instrumentation to our recognition capabilities in order to socialize and gossip about derived categories through language. In addition, we (can sometimes) use the formalized expressions of these categories prepared for socialization to ensure internal consistency.

Artificial neural networks that did something similar could have a number of major philosophical and practical advantages: - enable decentralization of data sets - grow with humans rather than apart from them - enable identifying problematic internal inconsistencies

Have we considered crafting an agency as an information infrastructure policy steward, with the explicit intent to prohibit and prosecute any local and state regulations which would harm the proliferation of information infrastructure.

Probably this is not the FCC since its mandate is too broad. But if some such agency had the ability to force municipalities to allow private infrastructure investment, we might start to get the internet we want pretty quickly.

This isn't quite the same thing -- to be completely analogous, we'd need the fabricator to also recognize that it was fabricating another fabricator, and then change THAT generated fabricator to have the same intervention but only in the case that we care about compromising.

if we all stopped believing it tomorrow

Similarly, money provides no power in society to the person controlling it. Because if we all stopped believing that it would continue to work in the future, it wouldn't.

... This is an obviously incorrect argument! There are things that occur only because of widespread belief. Nevertheless, those things do occur!