kbrkbr

Not a week passes where I do not learn something interesting on hn! And this one may even be life altering!

Took me 30 years to find out that I have pollen allergies, and from that food allergies.

And because my body only produces very little diamin oxidase, that leads to heavy symptoms elsewhere in the body. I just recently got so far that diet and fenistil make things usually bearable, and when it gets heavy, only a little more fenistil fixes the symptoms. I don't think the symptoms are anaphylaxes, but overabundance of histamine. I had too many of them and I'm still here, never had to use the epi pen.

But from all the specialists I visited in my country, no one ever told me, that OAS exists, or oral therapy against them.

I can't say how thankful I am for the new ideas from your post and the child posts!

I want to open a side thread about your definitions or descriptions of what "consciousness" is. I think that could be pretty interesting after reading all the comments, and I think there's a lot of knowledge hidden here that we could throw together.

Some things that I understood, in my words:

- consciousness is probably not reducible to smaller, non-conscious parts of which it is composed. You could maybe say it is intrinsically holistic

- consciousness entails being aware of or observing qualities that hard science tells us the things don't have (green vs. length of lightwave); but "being aware of" or "observing" are so closely related to consciousness, that it may not be very informative

- consciousness can't be detected from the outside for now, and probably by the structure of the process. It is "inner" in a very peculiar sense (everything else is outer, and can't get in, except as representation)

This is in EU. You have three months to find a new job, which I found here after your comment made me think [1].

This may be a reasonable gamble, as many companies do probably not expect such a rochade, and do not have detective measures in place. And if that doesn't work, you still have 3 months time to find another job in an environment that favored job seekers at this time.

[1] https://expatrist.com/losing-a-job-in-germany-with-eu-blue-c...

We've seen that also. You interview someone online, help file the paperwork to get into the country and work visum, and then someone else, a technically much weaker guy, shows up on the first day. We had that twice in the last two years

Minor correction: this is the Vice-Chancellor. Germany does not have a Vice-President.

Me neither until very recently, when a student died from it. Then it was all over the news for a week. (I'm pretty sure that is in the level of being struck by lightning.) It has even a name: fried rice syndrome.

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/fried-rice-syndrome

If she is right in her assessment despite the wording, and these rights are something like a security vulnerability for societies, limiting them is not the only option. You can as well decide to use compensating controls (education, minimum age for social media, more bot control, limiting foreign agents access - not endorsing any of this, just some examples I heard elsewhere. This would thwart the ability without changing the rights it seems, which shows they are something different), or accept the risk tied to them as lesser than the gains.

The article's headline states unequivocally that crows are self aware. But the presented evidence seems rather thin and criticism of this very evidence is being presented at the end of the article (as I understand the architecture of the article: "crows are snart. Now findings suggest they are self aware erc."). I genuinely don't understand how this is not clickbait.

Same here. I never realized until I read an article about it well in my fourties. I read the late Wittgenstein when I was twenty, and I also thought that thing with "the meaning of a dog is a mental image of a dog" was a metaphor. He quotes this somewhere to criticize it iirc.

You can't read Socrates, because he did not write. You can read Plato though.

Judging by the ordinals you wrote right there it's probably more five reasons.

It's an observational study. It could as well be that persons with conditions that are tied to higher cardiovascular mortality more often do intermittent fasting.

It would appear that sqrt(2) does not have a meaning now, as sqrt(-1) in R. So it does not seem to matter if you do not convert it in an algebraic setting. There is no such number that you can reach with the enumerative approach, which will only give you the rational numbers. There are lots of proofs that sqrt(2) is not rational.

But in all probability we are discussing the wrong thing here. Our difference it's likely at a deeper conceptual level than this.

It seems to me that this comes at the price that now in your geometry the diagonal of a unit square does not have a defined length. Only an approximate one of 1.41421, but what does this approximate?

If you could, you could use that procedure to create a mapping

1 => first step in the procedure 2 => second step ...

That in turn would mean that N and R have the same cardinality. This would be news.

> Literally any definition of something infinite can always be reduced to a procedure that recursively transforms or observes some prior state.

Could you come up with or point to such a procedure for R (the reals)?

As I understand the diagonalization argument you can do that for N, but not for R.

That reminds me of Bruce Schneier's notion of security theater [1]. Implementing ineffective measures that give a feeling of being the right thing on superficial view, in security or elsewhere. Populism has understood that thoroughly.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater

I do not think the last sentence is an adequate description of what linear logic is, or how it's used and understood.

It is interesting in itself, I admit that. But I don't see how it would admit contradiction, or how logicians are clueless how to handle it. It is in fact well understood, and used in many places, e.g. computer science [1,2]

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_logic

[2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-linear/

For learning new stuff or deeper understanding old stuff I use "browser tab based backtracking". I research some books and articles on the topic. As soon as I realize that I do not understand something (it doesn't click), I open new tabs researching the points I don't understand and so on. After understanding I backtrack by closing the new tabs. The important part is the meta analysis: does this rabbit hole serve my initial goal? Given what I understood, is my initial goal still valid or should I revisit it? Learned a lot, works great for my brain.

That is an interesting thought. Maybe the problem is not the ai generated useless noise, but that it is so easy and cheap to publish it.

One possible future is going back to a medium with higher cost of publication. Books. Handchiseled stone tablets. Offering information costs something.

Talking about extreme situations, here is another possible scenario - if electricity is then rationed and works only for two hours a day, people with cigarettes or gold may actually buy the food, while people with Bitcoin go hungry, and the value may plummet.

This axiom is also not plausible, at least not to me.

How do under this axiom explain the success of science and engineering? I really don't see it.

With ad hominem and ad magazinam. If "method that works" means to you "method that works to convince someone", then there is anyway no difference to focusing on the topic. But if it means "method that works to find or clarify knowledge", then this is wrong. I genuinely wonder if the confusion of the two or trading the latter for the former may be at the heart of the problem, and if the rise of social media is training us to find the former the normal one. With all its stars and likes you get for ad hominem more than for a well done rational argument.

I agree with the assessment that there are not many systems we can predict 10 years out with great confidence, specifically geopolitics.

But I do not think I painted much of a picture of Tetlock's results.

I read the article as concluding: let's stop predicting, it does not work. Let's start building. (After stating we cannot predict this, and we cannot predict that.)

And I think Tetlock"s result contradict that, as I said. Sometimes and under certain circumstances we can predict quite well.

I think this article has two shortcomings that make its sweeping conclusions shaky.

First, it identifies forecasting with point forecasting. There are other ways to put forecasting questions, e.g. lower and upper level with a certain probability.

Also it mentions Tetlock, but only his negative findings, not his positive ones that lead to Good Judgement Project, which suggest the contrary of the conclusion of this article [1].

Thus I think it is not up to the latest research results.

See you over at gjopen.com, if you are interested and have lots of time to waste...

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_Judgment_Project

Yes, all the time. That's a way to understand how much I changed, like a mirror. Same with movies.

I wonder what the probability was back then to die by shark and per prehistoric cow.

> "french are despising non native speakers, especially the Parisians"

I don't judge if this is right or wrong, but I lived in south west of Germany for a while, where they teach French starting in primary school. Among the people there this is a common concept.

Optimism vs. Pessimism - that's not the only choice.

Both fix a strategy before looking at the question.

Another strategy would be to look at the question at hand and what we can predict with what uncertainty about relevant variables.

You probably meant 99.99%, or 0.1%.