This idea that “criminal” is some kind of basic aspect of someone’s being rather than being a status wholly controlled by the government, who can impose or remove it at will, is mind-boggling. And also probably explains a lot of how conservatives keep finding themselves in the jaws of the leopard.

And having played more LoL than I care to admit in high school, that’s some truly vile shit. If only it actually made it through the filters to whoever actually made the relevant choices.

Never thought I’d die fighting alongside a League of Legends fan.

How about an artist valuer?

Aye. That I could do.

Particularly hilarious at how thoroughly they’re missing the point. The fact that it suggests illegal moves at all means that no matter how good it’s openings are the scaling laws and emergent behaviors haven’t magicked up an internal model of the game of Chess or even the state of the chess board it’s working with. I feel like playing games is a particularly powerful example of this because the game rules provide a very clear structure to model and it’s very obvious when that model doesn’t exist.

See, you’re assuming the goal of moderation is to maintain a healthy social space online. By definition this excludes fascists. It’s that old story about how to make sure your punk bar doesn’t turn into a nazi punk bar. But what if instead my goal is to keep the peace in my nazi punk bar so that the normies and casuals keep filtering in and out and making me enough money that I can stay in business? Then this strategy makes more sense.

Quick, find the guys who were taping their phones to a ceiling fan and have them get to it!

Jokes aside I’m actually curious to see what happens when this one screws up. My money is on one of the Boston Dynamics dogs running in circles about 30 feet from the intended target without even establishing line of sight. They’ll certainly have to test it somehow before it starts autonomously ordering drone strikes on innocent people’s homes, right? Right?

In the pseudoarchaeology space you see a lot of equivocation between digital circuit configurations (e.g. the paths on a main board) and the designs of various ancient sites, particularly in Central America. In the crank version this is a sign that the Aztecs had digital technology and computers of some kind. In reality I think it’s neat to see the same design patterns crop up for trying to route non-overlapping paths for foot traffic as for routing non-overlapping paths for electrons.

Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

You know, that 30% figure is already enough to make it hard to express the value and power that the 1% control in terms of money - the numbers just don’t seem real. In practice they will never face a financial obstacle and can treat money (or their stuff as valued in money) as worth whatever they want it to be at the time.

In that sense the fact that Bitcoin valuations are basically made-up by whales and exchanges is pretty obvious to understand.

There’s got to be some kind of licensing clarity that can be actually legislated. This is just straight-up price gouging through obscurantism.

AI finally allowing grooming at scale is the kind of thing I’d expect to be the setup for a joke about Silicon Valley libertarians, not something that’s actually happening.

Computer scientists hate him: solve the halting problem by smashing all running computers with a sledgehammer.

Sure we’ve been laying the groundwork for this for decade, but we wanted someone from our cult of personality to undermine democracy and replace it with explicit billionaire rule, not someone with his own cult of personality.

Reading the article explains the article, my dude.

I know next to nothing about C++ but I do know that I heard that closing line in the original voice and got goosebumps.

I’m pretty sure you could download a decent markov chain generator onto a TI-89 and do basically the same thing with a more in-class appropriate tool, but speaking as someone with dogshit handwriting I’m so glad to have graduated before this was a concern. Godspeed, my friend.

There’s a whole lot of ontological confusion going on here, and I want to make sure I’m not going too far in the opposite direction. Information, in the mathematical Shannon-ian sense, basically refers specifically to identifying one out of a possible set of values. In that sense, no underlying physical state could be said to hold “more” information than any other, right? Like, depending on the encoding a given amount of information can use a different amount of space on a channel (TRUE vs T vs 1), but just changing which arrangement of bits is currently in use doesn’t increase or decrease the total amount of information in the channel. I’m sure there’s some interesting physics to be done about our ability to meaningfully read or write to a given amount of space (something something quantum something something) but the idea of information somehow existing independently rather than being projected into the probability distribution of states in the underlying physical world is basically trying to find the physical properties of the Platonic forms or find the mass of the human soul.

No V0ldek, you are the small shell script. And then V0ldek was a zombie process.

Honestly I’m more surprised to learn that this is deriving itself from actual insights being misunderstood or misapplied rather than being whole-cloth bullshit. Although the landauer principle seems kind of self-evident to me? Like, storing a bit of data is more dependent on the fact that an action was performed than on the actual state being manipulated, so of course whether we’re talking about voltages or magnets or whatever other mechanism is responsible for maintaining that state the initial “write” requires some kind of action and therefore expenditure of energy.

Then again I had never heard of the concept before today and I’m almost certainly getting way out of my depth and missing a lot of background.

Obviously mathematically comparing suffering is the wrong framework to apply here. I propose a return to Aristotelian virtue ethics. The best shrimp is a tasty one, the best man is a philosopher-king who agrees with everything I say, and the best EA never gets past drunkenly ranting at their fellow undergrads.