I was curious, so I did the math:
It’s $5M/mo to rent 1 PB of RAM on EC2 and $21,000/mo per PB in S3.
Conceivably, your dreams will be possible in a decade — they are feasible, but likely too costly now.
70 karma · joined January 10, 2020
It’s $5M/mo to rent 1 PB of RAM on EC2 and $21,000/mo per PB in S3.
Conceivably, your dreams will be possible in a decade — they are feasible, but likely too costly now.
Why should people believe you’re genuinely arguing that the thing is worth doing, rather than acting out selfish authoritarian impulses, if you’re not actually willing to do that thing?
Starting with yourself, while making a negligible impact, makes an impact that is positive (according to you) and shows your commitment to enacting that policy.
Have integrity: do it first.
Do you have any support that users who turn off a feature — such as Bluetooth — want it to continue to “just work”?
That seems opposite of their expressed intent in turning the feature off.
Can you describe a method of detecting binary patching that wouldn’t also detect a changed fork being compiled?
Like most things, the concept is much simpler than making one work — and I was hoping I could find some papers on the applied side of photon delay lines. (Since OP commented it was related to his/her PhD.)
Would be much appreciated.
Emergency powers to fund world wars are still in place — eight decades later.
It never goes away.
It’s possible that people don’t have the ability to be consistent and you have to tack between the two strategies.
The sloppy way people present the Copenhagen interpretation as a scientific conclusion is likely what’s stalling science: it’s fundamentally built on an extraneous assumption, but everyone pretends their assumed interpretation is a conclusion.
We’re not gonna get progress until people assuming an extraneous assumption drop it and redo the last couple generations of physics to not depend on it.
Electric cars are fungible, social fabric is not.
So we can lose Tesla and be fine with remaining electric car manufacturers or new ones. In contrast, losing a long-term social hub is a lasting negative impact.
Here we are two decades later, with it renewed.
Per Wiki:
> Many of the act's provisions were to sunset beginning December 31, 2005, approximately four years after its passage. In the months preceding the sunset date, supporters of the act pushed to make its sun-setting provisions permanent, while critics sought to revise various sections to enhance civil liberty protections. In July 2005, the U.S. Senate passed a reauthorization bill with substantial changes to several of the act's sections, while the House reauthorization bill kept most of the act's original language. The two bills were then reconciled in a conference committee criticized by Senators from both the Republican and Democratic parties for ignoring civil liberty concerns.
> [...]
> Following a lack of Congressional approval, parts of the Patriot Act expired on June 1, 2015. With passing the USA Freedom Act on June 2, 2015, the expired parts were restored and renewed through 2019.
Would it be by the term “immigration”?
I’m genuinely curious.
And bars, for instance, aren’t allowed to serve their primary purpose via delivery. Or movie theaters. Or music venues. Or retail. Or....
It’s gonna be a mess, because we already know the government is going to fail to alleviate the impact.
I wish I could add an auto responder for “Hi” that replies “Howdy, hope you’re doing swell. How can I help?”
I didn’t say boundaries should be completely non-porous (as your comment implies), but rather that we don’t want to eliminate human ethnic/cultural diversity and that requires boundaries which enforce rate limited exchange. To borrow an analogy, there’s a reason cells have membranes.
Intermingling at a rate which allows each tribe to maintain its integrity is natural, and has evidence going back longer than writing. As does outbreaks of violence at exceeding that rate.
For example, Brexit was an act of political violence because the UK immigration exceeded the rate at which the society could naturalize immigrants leading to horrific events like “grooming gangs” of immigrants raping native children. Typically at the point gangs of migrants are raping natives, we drop the word “immigration” and talk about “invasion” or “colonization”.
Similarly, other lurches towards nationalism in Europe and the US.
Homogenizing everyone into a single global culture, which would be required to have a single government without boundaries that rate limit migration, would be verging on genocide.
Your comment assumes a very negative interpretation of what I said.
The boundaries aren’t arbitrary; they reflect ethnic differences between groups.
Homogenizing people is an abhorrent suggestion — and without that, large governments don’t really work.
> Well, if it were reasonably run, why not?
This is extremely unlikely, because history has shown us that remote, centralized governments are generally both arbitrary towards citizens and ineffective at addressing regional needs.
Big, centralized government has killed 100M people in the past century.
> Imagine a world where the trillions going into the military were spent in other ways?
There’s basically zero chance that would happen, as a central world government would need a lot of force to keep regions following their edicts.
That you even suggest it shows that this isn’t a serious proposal.
> Would that be so horrible? So much more terrible than what we have now?
Yes, absolutely.
You seem to have a fantasy, not a serious view of how that would operate or the consequences to human well-being based on historic precedent.
It’s not that people don’t cooperate, it’s that what you’re proposing is dangerous and harmful, so people cooperate to oppose it.
There’s a reason people insist on societies based around individual liberty and citizen empowerment — they work! They’re what has led to the greatest increase in human well-being the world has ever seen.
Suggesting authoritarianism in response to climate change is simply creating a second problem — and one that’s unlikely to solve the first.
So yes, people resist you trying a repeatedly failed idea again, just so you can be seen to be doing something.
It seems to me that you’re telling people they’re wrong based on your opinion — and not a scientific conclusion.
Similarly, the human proclivity to invent “gods”, “spirits”, etc is because that’s the historic mechanism to discuss the behavior of complex systems — in analogy to our own complex behavior arising from the chemical and electrical interactions of brain regions. This is actually an effective mechanism, as we see that it semi-routinely identifies a phenomenon faster than a strictly “rational” approach. (I put that in quotes because it’s mostly a religious claim; it’s neither a rational conclusion such things don’t exist nor a rational approach to not use semi-accurate estimators when doing analysis.)
Let’s talk about a forest. Do you have any support for the position that the complex interplay of chemistry and other signaling along mycelium networks, etc in a mature forest doesn’t give rise to some form of consciousness in the same way that our brains do? ...what precisely is the distinction in your mind between neuronal networks and mycelium networks, which indicates that while both give rise to complex feedback and behaviors, only one has any kind of consciousness?
It seems to me that the minimal position is any system based on signal passing of a certain complexity begins to develop an awareness, given the huge diversity we’ve seen across the animal kingdom.
What’s the support for your position?
That’s always been my impression of socialism and communism: unchecked good intentions justifying repeatedly failed and destructive policies.
I think that’s why they also hate Amazon — at some level, they know that hundreds of millions of people voluntarily use Amazon products, while the only way they can get people to adopt their radical ideas is through coercion and force.
After all, Microsoft is building their quantum computing efforts around TQFTs, which are essentially what string theory is about — “(quasi)particles” are a tangle of the underlying field, and interactions are the results of those tangles interacting.
I’m pretty sure we’ve measured anyons and other quantum vortex knotting behavior in everything from photons to matter waves.
Then loop quantum gravity is trying to implement many of these same ideas, to reduce all of it to different tangle modes in the same field.
We’re not great at predicting which parts of ontology are eventually useful in other fields — mostly physics and other hard science, but more recently computer science, economics + finance, and even things like sociology and linguistics.
So we let the people who self-select to be ontologists guide what the field researches — and this has generally been fairly effective. Certainly more effective than if we’d only looked at things which had immediate, obvious use. Complex numbers, widely used in science and engineering, were once regarded as suspect abstract nonsense. That’s why they’re called “imaginary numbers”: it was a pejorative name that stuck.
We have cryptography, computers, modern physics, and modern finance to show for our efforts, among other things.
It simply takes time (like, decades to centuries) for new ontological ideas to propagate to other fields. We’re hoping that formalizing into HoTT and other computer friendly systems will allow us to align with software development, and speed the process up.
That seems to be going well, and at an accelerating pace.
The hope is that HoTT and category theory give us a framework to do exactly what you propose — more easily specify and interlink knowledge.
Expect results around 2050.
It took around 40-60 years for category theory to have a big impact — but now it is in fields as far away from mathematics as linguistics. Hopefully HoTT will get there a little faster, but it’s still going to take decades to go from niche research to widely used in mathematics to widely used across disciplines.
So, to summarize:
1. Because we’re bad at predicting the future and abstract math has often turned out to be useful later.
2. Mathematics is trying to do exactly what you propose with knowledge, via exactly the programs this blog is talking about.
Per Wiki:
> The energy of this particle is some 40 million times that of the highest energy protons that have been produced in any terrestrial particle accelerator.
Presumably wherever these extreme energy protons are coming from is rather warm.
Is there some reason to think the LHC has higher temperature?
Not a physicist; could be something like LHC having larger bunch sizes... but since we don’t know what causes these particles, it seems like we don’t really know the source temperature.
That doesn’t sound correct to me, and makes me wonder what the complaint about email is.
TLS encryption over a relay network seems like state of the art security, and something I’d trust much more than Signal to hide my metadata — which is how you’ll actually get killed in a “life or death” situation.
It’s also why Boeing has been cutting their key engineering staff in Seattle — they also unionized. In fact, rumor has it that the entire reason MCAS/737MAX debacle happened was outsourcing and contracting shenanigans to break the engineering union.
It turns out moving senior management away from the rest of the company and getting in an ugly fight with your talent before petulantly building a non-union plant elsewhere leads to low quality products and out of touch executives.
Who could have known?
Oh yeah, my friend’s uncle who flatly said when his generation of engineers retired, Boeing would lose the ability to make planes.
And everyone else.
There’s nothing wrong with women in STEM programs, but not having matching men-in-social-sciences programs is a Title IX violation... precisely in the way only having sports for men would be.
You can have programs for no one; you can have programs for everyone; you cant have programs only for one sex.
That’s literally the point of civil rights laws.
Why do you think we talk about the lack of women in STEM, but not the lack of men in HR, education, social work, psychology, etc?
Because bigots set the agenda.
Having sports programs for one sex has been ruled illegal under Title IX — but how many universities have special tutoring just for women?
That is, programs to help women in majors where they trail but offering no similar programs for men in majors where they trail.
Again, the reason we don’t talk about that illegal discrimination is because bigots set the agenda.
Optimizing the dairy while loading in the sugar is completely wrong from a health perspective.