lanternfish

With the correct initial state, any Turing complete cellular automata (like CGoL) can model any computable system. We can computationally model prevailing quantum models (albeit incredibly slowly), so an unbounded CGoL field would fit the criteria.

Focusing on your product presumably involves improving that product.

Improving the product presumably involves understanding the end user.

Understanding the end user presumably involves understanding their alternatives.

Webdev is the JRPG of programming - countless barely integrated systems which have compounded over years of legacy buildup into a Gordian behemoth no single individual can truly understand.

C is the Dark Souls of programming - ostensibly simple but with a bunch of unintuitive pitfalls and recommended optimizations. This maps C# and C++ onto DS2 and DS3 pretty well.

The above poster is referring to the amount of sunlight between a savings and standard time basis - not between summer and winter.

You can make a serious of arguments about how the nature of industry in a country ultimately derives from historical and geological factors which can be causally divorced from genetic traits.

I don't think any critical theorists would consider the statement 'industrial comparative advantages exist across countries' to be racist - or even something like neo-imperialist.

You could claim that capitalism is flawed due to the way it distributes labor against these historical differences (many of which were propogated along racial lines due to colonialism), but I don't think the analytical claim _under_ capitalism holds any normative merit.

Presumably Bernie just doesn't want US governmental capital (via tax programs, etc) to be going to SpaceX over - say - welfare programs.

I don't think the tweet is addressed to Musk himself.

TCP/IP doesn't have prescriptive biases towards authentication and identity.

Well that depends on what you want to do - if you're trying to interpret an applied conundrum, it provides a framework for accepting or rejecting justifications towards that question. It doesn't necessarily prescribe a solution, but provides a metric for evaluation of a solution's justification.

Alternatively, on a normative level, you can still debate the merits of the framework when compared to other systems (deontological - virtue - care - etc.) by beginning with meta-ethical axioms and resolving them to normative positions. Consider an ontological framework which doesn't recognize free will of others - this could dramatically inform a delimma between a utilitarian system and an egoist one.

That's a strange position to pivot off of - there's no normative claim in that entire passage, just an analytical deconstruction of a societal manifestation.

I think the commenter would agree with most of what you're saying - I just don't think they care. The argument would be that raising the quality of life of the Chinese citizen through accelerated economic development as brought on by IP theft outweighs the costs of the theft due to the fact that those costs are relatively minor. They'd claim that the precedents being set don't matter, because they were set by all those other counties throughout history already. The claim would be that while China may be breaking the rule de jure, the de facto playbook has already been written by convention.

A utilitarian would absolutely say that causing one group severely negative utility is worth a corresponding positive utility in another group. However, they'd also say that these are useless examples to apply knee-jerk aesthetic analysis to, because they're practically impossible.

The aversions we have to this kind of inhumane utility juggling are because we instinctually recongize the second order and knock-on effects without needing to specify them. Dehumanization, inequality, precedence - these are all utility-real things which a responsible utilitarian incorporates into their utility calculus as major negative impactors.

When you strip the situation of any practical relevance, of course the conclusions are 'stupid' because the criteria you apply to determine that stupidity are based on a practical reality.

The question of how one actually resolves the utility calculation (once weighing bases are determined) is a question of applied ethics, not normative ethics.

Consider: it could be entirely consistent for a Utilitarian to make the utility justified decision that utility calculus is outside of their capability, and a Deontological framework would serve as their best in-situ heuristic. They would still be a Utilitarian, even thought their black-box criteria resembles a deontology.

In classical Newtonian mechanics, velocities add normally a+b = c (an approximation which works near perfect for almost all velocities humans interact with). I think you might be asking a different question, though, but I'm not sure what.

The emergence here is somewhat loose, but the two 'systems' interacting are the 'fox pathfinding system' and 'terrain meshing system'. Neither of these systems explicitly point the player towards high value locations, but together they tend to. The fox points towards high mesh density locations, and the meshing system correlates those high mesh density locations with high value.

Now, this is borderline in my book as the fox pathfinding system isn't meant to point towards high mesh density locations, that's really more of a happy bug.

Money is remarkably adept at reducing red tape to ribbons.

I think this is a timeframe/certainty axis more than an efficacy/cost one.

As a robotics platform, there's nothing inherently weaponizable about quadrupedal locomotion over, say, a quadcopter. Weaponizing this system would be almost as difficult as developing and then weaponizing the system.

'The United States succeeds only because a critical mass of us choose to believe in this religion and really want it to succeed.'

Systems ought not require faith in order to be successful. An actor can believe in the good of a system without worshipping it; the kind of 'religion of America' you describe is the framework culpable for many of the worst atrocities the US has committed: Iraq, Vietnam, even Jim Crow or slavery can by tied to a reverence for some fundamental eidolon of 'Americanism'. Separating church and state is meaningless if you turn the state into a church: our systems should be meaningful without the crutch of the founding fathers, the constitution (as a historical object), or the piety of our public infrastructure.

There may be an element of the United States social project which resembles religion, an element that is likely very similar to crypto worship. However, this is not a defense of crypto's legitimacy, but a scathing critique of America's ontological basis.

While there is a legitimate argument to be made in favor of either restructuring or banning American football, it's clear that the moral culpability relating to these systems aren't comparable. A fundamentally very small population is vulnerable to the TBI risk of American football, and the vast majority of that population willfully decides to engage in that risk with knowledge of it. However, the environmental and economic (supply chain) externalities of Cryptocurrency are imposed upon those who don't opt into the system, and also operate entire orders of magnitude higher in scope.

Not that much larger than those big block laptop adaptors, black injection molding would make it look pretty legit.

? The specific claim made by the headline is about algorithmic bias. I do not recall an algorithmic banning of Donald Trump.

presumably all cars are persistently monitored 24/7 anyways.

This tech is probably less error prone than the mentioned eye witness sketches

'Google announced Wednesday it would require all in-office workers'

First sentence of the article.

Example completion. Looks like it fooled you.

In high school debate, including policy, strategy usually involves reading a bunch of different responses to make your opponent have to frontline (respond to responses) all of them in a tighter speech. Generally, high school debate is not a great forum for legitimist investigation of issues, and should be treated more like an advanced game with a lot of strong and unintuitive meta-strategies.

Where in that comment does it advocate for personal harm? It seems to me to be an entirely valid (if somewhat extreme) ideological viewpoint about cloud computing applied to a product. This is absolutely a _reasonable_ critic, it's just that their criticism is fundamentally non-constructive because, by their analysis, the entire business model is in violation of some goodness criteria. Haters exist, but haters are fanatical. That threat had pretty much exclusively well reasoned and argued analysis, even if that analysis was remarkably critical.

They didn't formally initiate a credit check or validate net worth, but I guarantee none of those brokers would give me the time of day if I called in right now. The theater is there to avoid the credit checks; the fact that they didn't check just means her plan worked.

This is a remarkable regressive perspective. Nothing is 'unblockable'. If global powers decided tomorrow that bitcoin was a blight on humanity, they could effectively wipe out the network in a variety of ways; it wouldn't take very much coordinated regulation to deflate the hype to a point where the utility of crypto basically tanks for the average user (who are mostly speculators at this point). Just because a system _could_ theoretically replace fiat currencies doesn't mean it will; there's a reason fiat powers are fiat.

Moreover, the parent comment isn't simply complaining, and isn't even necessarily interested in presenting an opinion. You made a very strong claim about the lack of a necessary resource expenditure race in bitcoin mining (a point which I think is laughable from a thermodynamic/economic perspective) and this comment is presenting a counterargument; If none of this matters, why did you even bring it up?

I think smooth locomotion is an unfortunate reality of current VR hardware; If most of your userbase gets uncomfortable from non-smooth locomotion, it makes sense to design for the smooth locomotion as a first-class experience.

We can diff-in-diff deaths from medical emergencies; there doesn't need to be very strong proof beyond that because of remarkable signal strength.