550 karma · joined July 14, 2021
If I am not mistaken, the fact that DOJ is preparing a suit means that the deal will not go through for at least a year or more, so Adobe can delay paying. They can also, intentionally, perform poorly in court to let DOJ get an easy win and avoid paying Figma.
In my opinion, the only losing party in this story is Figma. Adobe gets a chance to back out and DOJ gets a chance at an easy win. I am surprised FTC didn't jump on this, considering they are looking for wins, after their weak lawsuit against Meta's acquisition of Within.
As the name suggests, this allows you to search any video using meaning and context. This is very useful for skipping through the fluff on youtube videos.
Spoiler Alert : In this book, a character invents a way to impart any belief into your mind. So if you read "water is poisonous" while in the MRI-type machine, your brain will completely believe that water is poisonous. The intention was for people to believe that they can win against the technologically superior aliens.
But the character made a one character change (+ to -) to modify the machine to make a person believe the opposite. So "humans will 100% win against aliens" became "humans will 100% lose against aliens"
Very interesting idea.
Regardless, I agree that being multi-planetary is absolutely a requirement for humanity. We are too risky here. And the risk is not from outside. Humanity has survived for 100s of millions of years without as asteroid annihilating us, and I don't see it changing now).
The biggest risk to humanity is humanity. We will probably figure out a way to destroy ourselves, either with something much more powerful than nuclear bombs or some new unimaginable tech.
Also, I agree that the idea for interstellar travel has some holes. Let me rephrase my argument as follows : for every accomplishment of mankind (airplanes, spaceflight, moon landing, nuclear, computers, internet), there have been just as many critics claiming that it isn't possible (they had their own set of reasons). And all of these technologies were much more infeasible compared to interstellar travel (and yet we did that).
5 years ago, would you have imagined ChatGPT or Stable Diffusion? Tech moves fast. There is no doubt in my mind that in a century, we will see interstellar travel like we do airplanes today. But this may well be wishful thinking because I really want this to be true.
They had to figure out how to launch from earth's gravity, go exactly to the moon, decelerate, land without accident, launch back again, go exactly to the earth, decelerate and land without accident. Atmospheric reentry is almost 25000 degree Celsius, hotter than almost anything we had ever experienced.
So, given a century, surely medicine will figure out hibernation. And then humans can continue their lifespan when they reach their destination.
Your example of hotels in orbit is an incorrect example. If humanity wanted to build a hotel in orbit, we would have a hotel in space (we already have a crappy hotel - ISS). I don't consider Hilton's incompetence to represent humanity's incompetence.
I said "almost everyone". If you go to 1920s and ask a million people if humanity will be able to walk on the moon within their lifetimes, not a single one would say yes. And yet, we were able to do it. Similarly, we have been conceiving of interstellar travel for decades.
> Try a few dozen thousand years, my dude
With constant acceleration, ship time is very different. With constant acceleration using controlled nuclear fusion, we can do it in less than a century. Project Orion is not constant acceleration. Now before you point out issues in constant acceleration, remember that if you were in 1920s, you (and I) would also point out issues in moon landing. How can humanity ever leave Earth's gravity, go accurately to the moon, decelerate, LAND without crashing, walk, LAUNCH from moon again, go accurately to the earth, handle extreme atmospheric temps, and LAND without crashing.
Well, we did all of that. So surely, given a century, we can figure out interstellar travel.
If not, then we can use a galaxy's resources to slow us down. Basically a complex version of planetary-slingshot.
My argument is, given a century, we are likely to be able to find some way to decelerate. Consider our accomplishments in the last century (airflight, spaceflight, computers, nuclear, internet)
I don't think Dark Forest is possible because consider how different our thought process is from any other life form on Earth. And due to butterfly effect, every civilization's thinking will be completely different. The chances that every civilization will converge their thinking into dark forest seems impossible. Some stupid civilization is bound to broadcast their existence and location. Some other stupid civ might try to control all galaxies using self-replication (exponential growth). So we should have seen some such sign (considering how many alien civs are likely to be there)
Great Filter is another possibility. But it feels unlikely : there are trillions (10^12) of galaxies and trillions (10^12) of planets in each galaxy. So a total of 10^24 (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) planets out there. Consider the number of civilizations. Is it possible for every single advanced civilization to be destroyed by the Great Filter? If it is, then it must be one hell of a filter. I am very excited to find out what it is, if it happens in my lifetime.
Isn't hydrogen one of the most common elements in the universe? And nuclear fusion needs only hydrogen (technically deuterium and tritium, but where there's hydrogen, deuterium and tritium will also be there)
Surely, given a century, our scientists will figure out something.
This^ is from the traveller's standpoint. I am not completely sure about how long it would take from the perspective of someone on Earth. But this definitely seems plausible if we can solve the other problems with constant acceleration such as sufficient fuel and protection from interstellar dust (at close to light speed, dust would hit with unimaginable force).
[1] https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/840/how-fast-will-...
A couple centuries ago, the brightest minds thought that humans flying in the air would take a million years. How can humans travel to the other part of the earth within a month? Today, it takes 16 hours (4 of which are airport security).
A century ago, almost everyone thought that stepping on a divine body like the moon is absolutely impossible for humanity. We did it less than 80 years after inventing aircrafts.
A century ago, everyone thought it was impossible to fling a tiny device to blow up an entire city. Hiroshima and Nagasaki...
Now, we think that it would be impossible to travel very long distances in space. Well, this challenge seems a piece of cake compared to flying in the air, walking on the moon, or generating unimaginable energy from atoms.
My layman solution to interstellar travel is constant acceleration using controlled nuclear fusion. We can use interstellar dust for necessary matter for our nuclear fusion (lots of hydrogen in interstellar dust). Even if we can't use interstellar dust while travelling, we can certainly carry enough from our solar system.
I read somewhere (don't remember where) that if a ship constantly accelerates in space, it can reach another star system in a few decades and another galaxy in less than a century.
It's definitely a trivial challenge for humanity compared to what we have accomplished in the last 2 centuries. What do you think?
They need to unanimously agree? So, one bad/corrupt juror could render anyone not guilty?
I thought it would be majority or 3/4 majority (as they do for some bills in parliament). Unanimous seems pretty risky.
There are a couple other tricks I use such as an overlap window for segments and a little post-processing for better results from the comparisons; but overall, this is the gist of it.
An issue with this approach is that ques-ans doesn't work as well as I'd like bec question and answer don't necessarily have similar embeddings ("What's the dog doing?", "He's sleeping" can be 2 completely independent sentences). So I would love to investigate more into Flan-T5 for this.
I am "AlexanderTheGreat#9743" on Discord if you want to discuss more.
Plus large scale retrieval of video information is pretty challenging (even for them). Facebook had to create a new framework (FAISS) to solve this problem. So I presume it must be pretty challenging.
But on a short scale, they already do this. For some queries, in the search results, they show a youtube link which automatically goes to the relevant part of the video.
1. I couldn't agree more. The only issue is transcribing the video. Everything else can be done for hour long videos. I was thinking about pushing transcribing on the user's browser, if possible.
2. Good point. Tbh I didn't even know about these platforms. Similarly, spotify and apple podcasts should also be covered. An issue with these platforms is that they may not have a good way to get the video from the platform (unlike youtube's yt-dlp). But in the long run, it can be covered.
3. Will add SSL soon.
Yes, groups would be very helpful. Another way to look at it would be channels on youtube/other-services. I plan on preprocessing most major channels among all services. For channels/set-of-videos not preprocessed, the only option would be asking user to pay for the compute (because the other option of transcribing on the user's browser won't work for groups of videos)
I will try to add more relevant features, especially the one about longer videos and collection of videos.
Thanks a lot!