IsTom

I don't think I've ever met a leftist denying evolution.

I just want to vent: climate change is not a controversial topic, it's an inconvenient topic for people making a lot of money.

As to the PH result, arguments on relativized classes can be pretty inconclusive. There's both oracles for P^A = NP^A and P^B != NP^B.

It's wild how much more expensive they are in the US compared to Europe.

> were sold at or under cost price and the markup was on the game sales?

To be honest that has always had a smell to me akin to dumping.

I'd rather compare CPS to goto than regular imperative computation.

Does that matter that somebody else ran it for him?

Especially with how they pick (one of) the most likely word as the next one. And the most likely word is exactly the one with least entropy, the least surprising one and giving the least amount of information you can.

> A "random variable" is actually a measurable deterministic function from the set of possible outcomes of some experiment to the real numbers.

I don't think that this was the formalization that was used when the term was coined, given how late set and measure theory were formalized.

MAD was thought of later and its theory requires that all parties know of each others' arsenal, think that their enemies aren't going to use them first and there being enough of weapons to make end quick and certain. I have hard time seeing WW2 generals who've seen horror and made horror coming to the conclusion that "they aren't going to use it unless we do, so let's not".

When primate family produced a super-primate intelligence it sure aligned with the good of all of them.

In this world we've had an inocculation event against use of nukes. Two were dropped, people have seen how abhorrent their use is and collectively decided that they shouldn't be used.

If in the WW2 Japan also had nukes (and delivery systems for them) they'd probably have retaliated in kind and US wouldn't let that slide too and it would have continued for some time.

As the article says the alternatives (that the author seems to favor instead) boil down to "there's some physics we missed" and probably that's the point where we differ. I find that implausible, what would that be? Consciousness quantum field? Consciousness boson? If it's going to be interacting with matter it has to have a way to do that.

What you do is determined by physical action of neurons. There is no need for there to be someone to perceive it.

Internal as in that which is feeling things. In this context the physical brain is what is responsible for what you do and feel, but it is not physically different from other matter and it requires no "internal observer" do do its thing.

Internal experience affects movement of physical molecules in what way?

If we talking about Meta, Google, etc. code is only incidental to them earning money.

> that they use because they can't get the artillery shells that they need

That used to be true, but I don't think that the case anymore. UA is now striking logistics ~150KM behind the contact line with drones. Regular artillery can't do that. Guided rockets maybe could, but they'd be more expensive and come in smaller quantities.

> US is currently able to wage a war 6000 miles away from its shores

For a rather restricted use of "wage a war". They did not stop Iranians from doing their thing. Bombing alone does not have a history of winning wars.

Potential for consciousness. To have a working mind you need to have a way to gather, process and store information. In case of rocks it would be very empty, static, timeless experience.

This way of thinking can only explain externally-visible parts of consciousness. It does nothing to address internal experience of being conscious and qualia. I don't think the internal experience has any bearing on physical reality (P-zombies would act the same externally) which makes this something outside of the realm of currently understood physics.

I don't think it's any more silly than the alternatives.

Erlang is weird in this regard. It has very strong guarantees when it comes to per-process heap that make GC much simpler: no escape hatches for mutability when most immutable languages do include them! But on the other hand inter-process communication is a form of mutability (using another process as a global mutable variable is trivial) and ETS etc. present a mutable interface.

If there were more they could have been outcompeted early.

I think what should be kept in mind is that these are not the hard levels BIY is famous for.

It's not a panacea, but in my case setting browser.tabs.unloadOnLowMemory in about:config helped a bunch.

It's much easier to generate and publish vast amounts of slop articles than to make real ones.

> at which point I think it ceases to be "just" Latin script?

I draw my line at 'U'.

> What we really we need is some kind of more detailed spec language that doesn't have edge cases, where we describe exactly what we expect the generated code to do, and then formally verify that the now generated code matches the input spec requirement.

That's theorem provers and they're awful for anything of any reasonable complexity.

And there are language families where minimal DFA is still exponentially large compared to NFA.

I might be holding it wrong, but last time I tried to use DynamoDB it made absolutely no sense performance-wise to me. Postgres on my laptop was many orders of magnitude faster for fraction of price. It seemed like it maybe might make sense when you hit multiple TBs of database data and can no longer run on a single server? But then the costs would be sky-high and you probably could engineer your way around this with this kind of money.