lisper

I'm pretty sure that's not true. I think most people learn to walk long before they become aware of being able to walk.

Let me rephrase: what's the difference between a child telling their parent to walk and the conscious part of your brain telling the unconscious part to walk? (BTW, I agree that the mushroom isn't learning anything. My point is just that a child communicating with their parents is not a good analogy.)

> a child telling their parent to walk isn't actually walking.

How is that any different from a brain telling its body to walk?

Siping?

I don't want to make it all broken. I would much prefer it not to be broken at all. I would much prefer if the courts just followed the law all the time. But if it's going to be broke, if the courts are not going to follow the law, I'd much prefer they do it all the time so that it is obvious that they are not following the law, and then maybe people will notice and do something about it.

The real problem I think is that no one seems to actually want the courts to follow the law. Everyone wants the courts to bend the law to their own desires, and so everyone gives them a pass when they do this. And that's how we end up in situations like we are in now.

> the direction of time turns sharply as you go inside

Yeah, that's what I meant. It's hard for me to reconcile the concepts of "the direction of time turns sharply" with "space is just space".

> Why wouldn't it be?

Because the whole concept of "shape" assumes properties of space that might not apply inside an event horizon?

> "Completely" means "for all".

Not in the case of bogosity. Completely bogus things might occasionally work under some very particular circumstances, but unless those particular circumstances just happen to be the circumstances you actually care about, complete bogosity can still obtain.

> setting the pointer to NULL

There is no such thing as setting a pointer to null. You can set the value of a variable (whose current value is a pointer) to null, but you cannot guarantee that there isn't a copy of the pointer stored somewhere else except in a few very particular circumstances. This is what the GP meant by "setting a variable to `NULL` only works for cases where there is one, obvious, owner". And, as the GP also pointed out, this "is not the circumstance under which double free is prone to happening in the first place." Hence: complete bogosity.

Frankly I'd prefer the latter because that would take away their plausible deniability and make it obvious that the court has gone rogue.

The problem is that if the courts only follow the rule of law some of the time then one must consider the possibility that these selective applications of the law are in service of some extra-legal agenda, in which case the fact that this agenda occasionally aligns with the law doesn't change the fact that the judges are in fact operating with compete disregard for the law except as it occasionally offers the opportunity to cover up their real motives.

Meiotic drive is selection.

> it isn't Darwinian selection, because it can favour transmission of genes which are not conducive to survival

This is the one thing that Darwin got wrong: he thought that the unit of selection was the organism, but it's not. The unit of selection is the gene. Richard Dawkins is the one who figured this out. Meiotic drive is not Darinian selection, but it is selection. But Darwin could not possibly have known this because genes were unknown at the time.

The HN headline shorterner has really run off the rails here. The actual headline is "The Mystery of People Who Speak Dozens of Languages" but HN shortens this to "The Mystery of People Who Speak Languages" which makes no sense at all.

I would love to avoid Amazon, and indeed I would love to support local retailers, but more often than not it is simply impossible. The only way I can find out if a local vendor carries an item I'm interested in, and if they have it in stock, is to physically go there. The amount of time that requires is orders of magnitude more than what it takes to order the item on Amazon, where I am all but guaranteed that it will be available.

It is astonishing to me that brick-and-mortar retailers have not banded together to put an on-line front-end onto their stock. It would technically straightforward (albeit not trivial) to build a web site as easy to use as Amazon, but with guaranteed same-day or next-day delivery via a partner like doordash, and with more reliable quality because local vendors have more of an incentive to vet their suppliers. I would love to use a service like that, but AFAICT it doesn't exist.

Someone here, please build this. I will be your first customer.

A bug that shows up in production but goes away when you try to debug it is usually called a Heisenbug.

> selection is only part of the story

Of course. Variation is the other part.

> gene flow or genetic drift

Those are two mechanisms by which variation occurs. This is not something Darwin got wrong, he just didn't have all the data. Genes were unknown in Darwin's time.

Thanks!

OK, this is something I know very little about so you may have to explain it like I'm a complete noob, but I still don't understand why, if all you want to do is boot 64-bit Linux, you couldn't use, say, a Raspberry Pi 4 instead of spending thousands of zloties on an 80-core machine that requires industrial cooling.

The operative word was always "premature". As with everything, whether or not a particular optimization is worthwhile depends on its ROI, which in the case of software depends on how often your code is going to be run. If you are building a prototype that's only going to run once, then the only optimizations that are worthwhile are the ones that speed things up by times comparable to the time it take to write them. On the other hand, if you're writing the inner loop of an LLM training algorithm, a 1% speedup can be worth millions of dollars, so it's probably worth it even if it takes months of effort.

> some of the tests require booting systems with 64k pages

OK, but then why an 80-core CPU?

Society itself is completely artificial. Money, property rights, laws, taxes, even the words I'm using to write this very comment... all of these are just human inventions, reified mythology.

Lutein. Why?

It's not just that. I use a fairly obscure dietary supplement. It's a crap shoot whether or not my local pharmacy has it in stock on any given day, and the only way to find out is to physically go there. If I factor in the cost of my time, buying local is orders of magnitude more expensive than Amazon, where I can place an order in under a minute.

I am astonished that brick-and-mortar merchants haven't banded together to get someone to build a decent e-commerce front end for their local stock. That would be a killer app.

> you didn't state clearly why you believe that MWI doesn't account for Born rule

That's what the whole post was about. The MWI doesn't account for the Born rule unless you add additional, questionable assumptions like branch indifference to the SE.

> You suggest that decoherence both produces and doesn't produce fully decohered branches?

No, that is not even remotely what I am saying. You are beginning to sound like a troll.

A superposition is not "half a photon". You are talking nonsense.

> observer doesn't feel change

It's not just that the observer doesn't feel change, it is that no experiment can demonstrate this change, not even in principle.

> tracing must be fundamentally unable to extract mortal's-eye view from god's-eye view

Why? Because that is manifestly not the case.

> Born rule is the same

Again, you are manifestly wrong. If someone had figured out how to derive the BR from the SE it would be Big News [1].

---

[1] https://blog.rongarret.info/2024/04/the-scientific-method-pa...

No, MWI has this problem too because it still has to account for the branch I am in.

The only interpretation that does not have this problem is the NCI because in that interpretation I am part of the fundamental ontology, at least some of the time.

There is no such thing as a half photon.

> Double slit experiment with one detector has a seemingly impossible phenomenon when the interference pattern disappears without measurement in our branch

Then you don't understand quantum mechanics at all. You should read this:

https://flownet.com/ron/QM.pdf

The TL;DR is that measurement and entanglement are the same phenomenon. A particle can become entangled with a detector even if the detector doesn't register anything.

But that is neither here nor there. Why do you get interference with no detectors? Your theory is that a detector at one slit is somehow paired with a "virtual detector" in a parallel branch at the other slit. But why would that "virtual detector" go away when the real detector is removed? Why is it never the case that there is a "virtual detector" at either slit unless there is a real detector at one of them?

> You could also sense that your location is privileged, because the observable universe is neatly centered at it

Yes, that's right. This is not an easy problem to solve. This is why it took thousands of years for mankind to realize that the earth is not at the center of the universe. The difference between that and the MWI is that there is actual evidence against geocentrism. There is no evidence against my-branch-centrism. Not only that, but the theory itself predicts that there cannot possibly be any such evidence. So the MWI is self-defeating. The only way there could be evidence for it is if it's wrong.

> in God's-eye view you have both

Nope. The mortal's-eye view is fundamentally incompatible with the god's-eye view. This is the reason that the measurement problem is a thing in the first place.

> if Born rule is an observed phenomenon, it must be computable from Schrödinger equation

Only if the SE is a complete description of reality, and it manifestly is not.

(If you want to argue that the Born rule is not "an observed phenomenon" then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe go hang out with the flat-earthers and lunar landing denialists. You may find kindred spirits there.)

> This was argued by Max Tegmark

Yes, the 3-D space part. That is old news. It's the Born Rule that (AFAIK) no one has yet derived.