jacksnipe

I think I’m missing something here. PA defines x * 0 = 0 for all x. So while we could take (Z+, 1, ++) as a model of it, we would be imposing a completely different definition of multiplication than the usual. Would this not be simply choosing to label 1 as 0 and work from there?

Zero is a natural number. It is in the axioms of Peano arithmetic, and any other definition is just teachers choosing a taxonomy that best fits their lesson.

Yeah this is what I meant, both in the behavior being intelligent and it being unfortunate that this is the case. It’d be nice if the most self-maximizing behavior were also the best behavior for the global system, but it doesn’t seem that it is.

Unfortunately, in the system most of us work in today, I think overconfidence is an intelligent behavior.

But what if you, the observer, are also rotating? What if you’re rotating faster than the thing you’re observing?

> Any cloud service that has end-to-end encryption today can be forced to break it if the jurisdiction in which they're based passes a law requiring it.

If a 3rd party can be compelled to decrypt it, it’s not e2e encrypted.

That is, by definition, not e2e encrypted.

Encrypted backups are an intractable technical problem. The key is on the device you’ve lost, so another copy of the key must be saved somewhere.

There has to be an element of trust, or else the actual use case that 99.9% of users have — I lost my device and want to restore my <whatever> - can’t be met.

It’s not like there’s some great alternative solution they’re intentionally neglecting.

I hadn’t considered this use case, thank you for pointing it out!

It made a massive difference in the day to day lives of the most affected people — the chronically ill.

I cannot emphasize enough how much of a death sentence being chronically ill before the ACA was. No protection for preexisting conditions meant one unfortunate incident could cost you your job could cost your your healthcare could cost you your ability to get back on solid footing to get another job.

You’re correct that this is the broad definition, but GP is correct that that is a very common form of regulatory capture in the US.

That’s what makes it a good abstraction.

Since it's underlining code you wrote, it must be "found" that is highlighted, not "expected". Much like up and down, gravity exists to ground all of us in the same direction.

So the entire economy should be in service of national security? That’s preposterous.

Making the argument that anti-trust is a bad idea because of geopolitics seems pretty wild to me.

I care more about how it affects consumers.

I would assume this is 1 request containing 2k pages vs N requests whose total pages add up to 1000.

Math is something that should be taught in an opinionated way with an eye toward pedagogy. Self study with GPT is an excellent tool in math, but only for those who have enough perspective to know which directions to set out on. I don’t think anybody who doesn’t know linear algebra should be guiding their studies themselves.

Since facebook was fined for processing friend requests with foreigners on foreign servers, I feel like licenses like this are actually necessary for any product with any remote services components to operate in the EU, with more jurisdictions to come suddenly and unpredictably.

Because multiplication gives rise to simpler algebras than convolution does.

I don't know, I'm not a doctor and I'm not giving advice to anybody!

Go until just before it hurts, which is a moving target that you will have to calibrate carefully

I’m in PT and dealing with orthos right now, and according to them, that IS how pain works for the vast majority of ortho injuries

10 years ago the NLP lab I was working in was trying to build a system like this for autoimmune disorders partnered with a hospital.

Autoimmune diagnosis is broken, and it IS a systems problem. The hospital system itself incentivizes compartmentalization of your different body systems to different specialists, because it allows the hospital to do less central planning and smoothes out the financial side of things (e.g. which departments do we invest in next year).

I care about the craft of constructing programs. I do not care about the craft of typesetting them.

I don't think abdicating responsibility for the consequences of technology you create is a sustainable system of ethics, but I also understand why you feel the way you do and where you're coming from. (I'm not throwing shade, we just have very different systems of ethics.)

Eh, I don't think that lens is useful. It appears to me that the genocide very likely may not have occurred -- and certainly would have harmed fewer people -- if Facebook didn't exist.

It is not simply a matter of it happening elsewhere on the internet -- Myanmar is one of the countries that Facebook provided its Free Basics package to.

Of course, I think the bulk of the blame lays on those actively perpetrating the genocide. But I'm concerned mostly with outcomes, and it seems that with different behavior from Facebook, there would have been a different outcome in Myanmar.

I'm not sure about better, but I'm concerned about a second Rohingya genocide.

There was a lot wrong with Facebook's moderation system. Spend any time in any politically active groups -- or groups that like to discuss politics -- and you'll quickly find people complaining about deranking. Based on both the extreme frequency with which it's reported and my own experiences with Meta, I believe that they're not making it up.

But Meta's moderation tools don't primarily exist -- as I understand it -- to keep discourse informative. They exist so that Meta doesn't accidentally become somewhat responsible for another genocide.

I think that community notes may be a better move for public discourse, but most conversations on Facebook itself happen in groups, and in groups nobody is going to be posting Community Notes that go against the trend of the group -- even if they might be useful for totally public discourse.

Yes well people get upset when antifa does anything

At that point it becomes important to ask (1) how much damage does the illegalization itself do; (2) how much harm does the limited access actually prevent; and (3) how much damage alcohol does, and what the tradeoff is.

If you’re going to make a harm reduction argument, you need to do your best to fully account for all the harms in play.