card_zero

The presence of all the Shakespeare references is quite coincidental, if Patrick Stewart didn't influence the writing at all.

Using a computer to do "by hand" is a vague concept, yes, but laws routinely embrace vague concepts. You used it yourself! "Hand-crafting", you said. It could be pinned down more closely to something like a single action that happens quite soon after you press a button or ... and further wrangling could ensue because it's never going to have all the vagueness removed. It's probably relative to current norms of computer use and what we do or don't automate casually (and thus describe as "by hand").

There are also many other irrelevant parameters. A thing isn't beautiful because it's pressurized, biodegradable, scheduled, dusty, reversed, volatile, modular, or rubber. However, beautiful things should last, because that would be better.

Wait, was that a Picard quote, in fact? It has the right tone. (Nope, looks like it's from Age of Ultron.)

Well now I just want The Picard Song ... ah, here it is. https://archive.org/details/darkmateria_picard

Walter Koenig (Pavel Chekov) died too, a few days ago.

So, I'll pick up on the weak points:

> As long as we have questions to ask, they are not theoretically constrained

> some infinities are bigger than others

Those are both limitations. They need conjectures and they need training data. Can they produce their own conjectures and training data, and feed off it forever, while staying meaningful and not being stuck in a loop (a very large set of repeating cliches) or descending into confused noise?

Yeah, I have some questions to add to their faq: https://centurylibrary.com/license-info/

* Will you actually sue anybody who doesn't follow your very fussy rules about what they can't do with the public domain works that you've scanned?

* Will you win if you try?

* Do you deliberately hide the original sources and names in case people go straight to the source instead of paying you?

* What happens to the rare books after you scan them?

Today I read this news story: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv62yg0erp8zo

They are doing damnatio memoriae on a footballer (who plays for Real Madrid), canceling his branded products, no longer mentioning him in news stories, and saying he should stay out of China, because he indirectly implied that Mao was a dictator.

So, OK, that's a kind of social harmony: they're very unified in telling you what you mustn't even suggest.

It's parasitic on humans and it's not an infinitely deep well. Wrong?

But it was also stated that their labor is extracted, which sounds like slavery, and that they are exploited, which sounds like fraud, and that they take some psychic damage, which sounds like a JRPG. Those would all be bad things.

The not/note typo strikes again, it reverses the meaning of a phrase.

There's a tenuous Roman connection mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Theodoro

"with several scholars identifying the "Dmitry", one of the three Golden Horde princes in the Battle of Blue Waters (c. 1362/1363), with a Prince of Gothia."

Certainly a good source of linked data. I was just using it to investigate why there's a fort called "Babylon" in Egypt, and then admiring the well-preserved brickwork. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_Fortress

I still have a copy of Photoshop 7 burned on a CD. Photoshop was once really excellent, back before its glory was clouded by subscriptions.

"Matures", like fades into the background. That's kind of the null hypothesis.

I'm not making a serious prediction that it will go away! I'm making an anti-prediction against the reflexive assumption of a massive increase in importance, to say that for all any would-be oracle knows, we could get the opposite, just as easily as their fortune-telling.

Everybody is maliciously taking you seriously :D

Hang in there! It gets better!

So for instance like if AI becomes slowly less relevant, then is discarded all at once. Change will be surprising! That much is likely.

Here you are taking "good explanation" and combining it with the term "just so story" which indicates a bad (arbitrary) explanation. So you cast doubt on the idea that explanations can be good. What's this, sabotage?

Some Amazon sites, they said. Lots of random companies and institutions: a Danish IT company, a Dutch cybersecurity company, Orange telecoms (in France). Various governments' sites for various services. Some BBC TV show pages, a gym group, a Japanese airline, Asahi (the brewers), Finland's state IT provider.

Progress is future knowledge. You don't know what future knowledge is, yet. When you know, it will have become present knowledge. You don't know that any particular ongoing change is progress. LOL predictions.

Who aimed the "nation of shopkeepers" epithet at the US?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_shopkeepers

It starts in Wealth of Nations, was picked up by a French revolutionary (still aimed at England, but in a more negative way), and Ben Franklin said something similar about Holland.

The other day I was watching a manager wrestle with Excel. He couldn't select information to send it to somebody who wanted it, because it was trying to do a collaborative spreadsheet thing and had got itself locked up somehow. He ended up taking a photo of the screen and texting it.

It's simple and elegant if you like it, overcomplicated if you don't.

I want to know more about these downvotes! If they're about technical errors. If you simply dislike etymology, never mind.

But if what you want is understanding, you want a good explanation. (Or to quote TheOtherHobbes from elsewhere in these comments, a reasonable metaphor: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50220700)

If you only like predictions and disparage explanations, I might start calling you names, specifically instrumentalist.

Similar to a quote from Niels Bohr, "those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it".

I like the word "eurgh", which is pronounced like vomiting: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/eurgh

Unsure how to respell that one.

Hiccough is the best one.

Rowhammer was kind of special, surely, what with being based on a physical design flaw?

But there's no quality that makes an object discernable as anything at all; it's all theories. You don't absorb facts about reality through a sense organ, you start with a theory - such as "this is hexagonal" or "this was made by a human" - and test it. I diagnose that you are suffering from inductivism.