david_ar

That sentence is not talking about MWI, it's talking about wavefunction collapse interpretations.

Interpretations affect how you apply that math to model reality, and hence the predictions you make. Math does not make any predictions about the outcome of an experiment on its own, it's just a formal system.

Splitting is just a metaphor for a superposition of macroscopic states. There's no extra mechanics involved.

a) Nobody said "unforeseeable". Macroscopic superpositions are entirely foreseeable, we just don't have the technology to keep them in a coherent state.

b) The link only says that some people have argued that position. I think all they're saying is that "wavefunction collapse caused by some arbitrary division between microscopic and macroscopic objects" is a stronger claim than MWI

My understanding was that MWI allows superpositions of macroscopic objects (the universal wavefunction), whereas the Copenhagen interpretation doesn't (macroscopic objects cause wavefunction collapse), which is in principle testable [1] (although not with current technology).

[1] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/#5

Qt's C++ heritage isn't any more relevant than WebKit's C++ heritage. I agree that the ecosystem needs to improve, but it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem.

This! I don't particularly care what technology people use to write apps, so long as it works well. As others in this thread have said, you can immediately spot a web-app-pretending-to-be-native because it doesn't work well.

QML appears to offer the best of both worlds - I don't understand why it isn't more popular?

Not that I'm a big fan of Java, but it really feels like people threw Java under the bus only to reinvent it all in JavaScript.

It would probably be possible to build a system like this on top of https://ipfs.io/, see https://github.com/ipfs/apps/issues/10 for example

Peanut butter probably isn't the best example...

Indeed, people even offer explanations when tricked into believing they had chosen the opposite outcome to the one they actually picked [1].

[1] http://researchgate.net/publication/6745688

> participants fail to notice mismatches between their intended choice and the outcome they are presented with, while nevertheless offering introspectively derived reasons for why they chose the way they did

> In the face of metahuman science, humans have become metascientists.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v405/n6786/full/405517a...

> Telstra, which controls approximately 50% of the market, and was traditionally the monopoly telecom provider, charges some of the highest transit pricing in the world

PSA: This is why you don't privatise public infrastructure

I never claimed that nobody was at least a little selfish, I was simply arguing that it isn't illogical that most people aren't sociopaths.

Prisoner's dilemma may be an exaggerated example, but it's a strawman argument to conclude that game theory isn't applicable to real life.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying selfishness doesn't exist, or that cheating the system doesn't work for some people. My point is that altruism is not "illogical", and it doesn't require "a faith in some God or man-given morality, ethics, or emotions like love, mercy etc" to make sense as the parent content suggested.

Exactly, I've been thinking for a while that the lack of a package manager is really holding back qml adoption.

Not really, Nash equilibria aren't necessarily the best outcome for any individual (cf the prisoner's dilemma). Cooperation is usually better than every-man-for-himself for everyone involved, hence why social animals evolve altruistic traits. Of course, selfishness works at the expense of an altruistic majority, but that's why people don't like to associate with psychopaths

There's been some talk of collaborating with those projects, so it's definitely a possibility. IPFS is more about tying together all the existing components in a nice way, rather than trying to reinvent everything itself. Please get involved if you have ideas about the direction that should be taken :)

Integrating with the existing web is definitely one of the goals, see https://github.com/ipfs/ipfs.js

Huh, ripple has changed since I last looked at it, could have sworn it used to be based purely around debt cycles.

Note that bitswap isn't purely a tit-for-tat system, but will also include a credit system like you suggest.

> I have designed a protocol that allows nodes to transfer credit to cancel out 'cycles of debt'.

Awesome, sounds like if Filecoin were based on Ripple instead of Bitcoin. Ideas are always welcome, so please share yours either via Github issues or IRC (freenode#ipfs) :)

You're right, this isn't the only possible incentive system, and ideally IPFS will be compatible with multiple ones. Could you link to the other projects you're talking about?

1) Whilst it can be used to make a profit, it can also be used as a system to allow you to trade storage space on your own computer in return for replicating your own content on other people's machines. The more storage you provide, the more redundantly your own content is hosted on the network, and the longer you can still serve your own content whilst your own machine is offline. IANAL though, so I can't comment on the legal implications.

2) Sure, you can view it as a CDN anyone can participate in (including machines within your LAN).

3) There are plans for handling DMCA takedowns https://github.com/ipfs/gateway-dmca-denylist

See https://github.com/ipfs/archives/issues/7

See https://github.com/ipfs/faq/issues for comparisons to existing systems. The plan is for IPFS to be able to transparently integrate with the existing web, e.g. https://github.com/ipfs/ipfs.js

There will be incentives in the future, both in terms of promoting a good seeding/leeching ratio like bittorrent ("bitswap"), as well as http://filecoin.io/

Not yet, but this is planned: http://filecoin.io/