sahadeva

1. More people are getting on the internet all the time, especially new markets like India (who likely don't use ad blockers).

2. We're still early internet, and people rely on the internet more and more (and therefore search more). E.g. in Covid, people are likely transitioning more of their life online, which is good for Google.

3. As companies and the broader economy do better, companies will invest more in growing themselves, often by buying more ads. Companies are doing very well right now (see stock market), so there are more ads being bought AND the price per ad will likely go up because there is more competition.

4. There is still plenty of untapped ad real estate for Google to monetize as well (searches that could generate ad revenue, and web pages that can surface better ads).

This combination is great for Google.

The New Yorker article on Dennett is actually not up to the New Yorker's usual standards, but it gets at a few key points and punchlines. I linked to one of Dennett's books that I think every physicist would enjoy in my first comment.

I think two inverse arguments to the one you mention are more appealing - about getting close to a human brain with neural networks but not quite being there. First, and the New Yorker article actually mentions this at the end, but if you had a damaged human brain we could all clearly see that you are still human and conscious, just not exactly the way someone with a normal healthy brain is. Second, and this gets to not over-reducing the physical aspect of consciousness, say a Nobel prize winning physicist claims they have located physically in the brain where consciousness lives (I think this actually happened) you could quickly ask her, "so, if you take that puddle of neurons and other material where consciousness lives out of your brain and put it in a jar would you say "you" are now sitting in that jar experiencing what its like to be in a jar?" (also absurd).

As for rocks, that does sound absurd! :)

Really appreciate your thoughts.

I don't think I fully understand what Nagel means by developing objective tools to describe experiences, I should re-read the full article a few more times. I think, though, that you're exactly right: We _do_ have a shared understanding and experience of what its like to see a red ball, and we can talk about it in the abstract. My reading of that is that because we do have a shared human experience there can and indeed must be a physical account (Nagel's term) of it. Nagel's argument brings in a wedge of doubt about whether that shared experience itself is real by saying, at least partially, that because we can't explain what it is like to be a bat (bat point of view) in human terms we won't be able explain what consciousness is for humans _or_ bats with a physical account (at all or at least right now). Dennett, I think, says that that is more or less backward, and that all the means is there are different kinds of consciousness. In the article I mention he says,

"The big mistake we’re making,” [Dennett] said, “is taking our congenial, shared understanding of what it’s like to be us, which we learn from novels and plays and talking to each other, and then applying it back down the animal kingdom. Wittgenstein”—he deepened his voice—“famously wrote, ‘If a lion could talk, we couldn’t understand him.’ But no! If a lion could talk, we’d understand him just fine. He just wouldn’t help us understand anything about lions.”

“Because he wouldn’t be a lion,” another researcher said.

“Right,” Dennett replied. “He would be so different from regular lions that he wouldn’t tell us what it’s like to be a lion. I think we should just get used to the fact that the human concepts we apply so comfortably in our everyday lives apply only sort of to animals.” He concluded, “The notorious zombie problem is just a philosopher’s fantasy. It’s not anything that we have to take seriously.”

I found that convincing, I'm curious if you do as well?

Really? That would be very surprising to me. Where did Dennett say this?

I appreciate the pushback. Here is what Nagel says in his essay (emphasis mine). I wonder if you still disagree?

"It is impossible to exclude the phenomenological features of experience from a reduction in the same way that one excludes the phenomenal features of an ordinary substance from a physical or chemical reduction of it--namely, by explaining them as effects on the minds of human observers. If physicalism is to be defended, the phenomenological features must themselves be given a physical account. But when we examine their subjective character it seems that such a result is impossible. The reason is that every subjective phenomenon is essentially connected with a single point of view, and it seems inevitable that an objective, physical theory will abandon that point of view."

This is a great essay, and I would highly recommend this as a counterpoint to Nagel in terms of explaining consciousness ("qualia") if you want to get the most out of Nagel's argument: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/27/daniel-dennetts...

If Nagel things materialists can't explain consciousness Dennett thinks they can. E.g.

"The obvious answer to the question of whether animals have selves is that they sort of have them. [Dennett] loves the phrase 'sort of.' Picture the brain, he often says, as a collection of subsystems that 'sort of' know, think, decide, and feel. These layers build up, incrementally, to the real thing. Animals have fewer mental layers than people—in particular, they lack language, which Dennett believes endows human mental life with its complexity and texture—but this doesn’t make them zombies. It just means that they 'sort of' have consciousness, as measured by human standards." Joshua Rothman, New Yorker, MARCH 27, 2017 - http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/27/daniel-dennetts...

More detailed counterargument by Dennett: https://www.amazon.com/DARWINS-DANGEROUS-IDEA-EVOLUTION-MEAN...

3 million? According to http://www.yum.com/investors/faqs.asp they have "41,000 restaurants in more than 125 countries and territories" - meaning about 17% of their stores are in China.

Should be working fine now :)

Stopping recruiters from messing with people on the site is one of the big reasons we use Facebook - we can block anyone who abuses the system easily, and potentially block the companies using those recruiters. If we make the stakes high for companies abusing people through reckless recruiters hopefully we can change how companies think twice about hiring them. We also built in some simple triggers to make reporting abuse super easy, and we monitor how people are using the system closely. Hopefully in the future we can watch for suspicious behavior patterns based on what we learn.

Thanks for asking :)

Sorry about that! We're looking into the bug and should have it fixed up asap...

We'll be adding more skillsets in the future - thanks for the feedback. Anything else you like / don't like?

We are processing the connections so we can show you friends of friends on the site. The thought being that it's much easier to start chatting with someone if you know you have friends in common. If you do signup you can sort everyone on the site by how many mutual friends you have, which is pretty amazing.

Using Facebook also allows us to protect against spammers, recruiters, etc., and we can make filling out your profile easier (though we still have work to do there).

What alternative site would you want to be able to sign up with? Github? Twitter?

Thanks for the feedback.

Thanks for trying out the site - can you be a bit more specific about what happens when you try to sign up? Did you get a facebook dialog popup? Would love to help you get it sorted out - just launched and we probably have a few bugs lurking that we're not aware of. Also, refreshing the page might do the trick...

Thanks.

Thanks for trying it out - can you tell me what issues you came across in the signup form? We're working on making it easier, but wanted to get the site out there and get some feedback.

CollabFinder is a network of geeks like you looking for collaborators. No recruiters. No MBAs.

It's the place to go when you're looking for someone to help you with your next big idea. Browse developers, designers, illustrators and writers by skill, interest, location and how many friends you have in common. Then chat with anyone with one click.

And if you're looking to do a new startup tag yourself with "Y Combinator" or "Summer Camp" or "TechStars" to get pitched by people like you. Want to see Python developers in San Francisco who want to do a Y Combinator company related to education? No problem.

Try it out now at CollabFinder.com and let us know what you think.

Saha, Gil and Simon.

1. Spotify has a slightly larger selection (8.5mm tracks on Rdio, 13mm on Spotify)

2. Rdio has a killer web app so you can login to your account from any computer (great for parties and traveling). Both have desktop and mobile apps.

3. Spotify has higher bitrate (320) on pro accounts and uses p2p and other tech to do things like pre-cache songs it thinks you're going to listen to so they play instantly when you click on them

4. I haven't used spotify much, but Rdio's social features seem more fluid and their collaborative playlist feature is awesome

See more discussion at Quora: http://www.quora.com/How-do-Rdio-and-Spotify-compare?q=spoti...

http://www.madmimi.com/ is new / neat / ajaxy. Check it out, it's got some nice features.