mrob

Putin's getting old. If he dies before we hit recursive self-improvement, there's a chance some maniac gets access to the nukes and saves 4 billion of us (global nuclear war only kills about half of humanity).

The most straightforward method of eliminating all disease is to kill all life. This seems a much more likely outcome than the housecat scenario.

>no strategical impact by the actions of one player on the other

The players know if they're ahead or behind, which affects how much risk to take. Do you take the safe shot, or go for the tricky shot that could potentially save you a stroke if you get it right but could lose you more if you fail?

Comparative advantage only works when your economic value is greater than the cost of keeping you alive.

It's not unique. I for one agree. Mathematics is obfuscated because mathematicians prioritize compactness on the page over ease of understanding. This results in confusing notation (single-character variable names, implicit multiplication, implicit parentheses) and large numbers of omitted steps.

If I want to understand some mathematics, my first step is always translating it to code. Modern code (excluding array languages) no longer has a culture of minimizing character count, and omitting "obvious" steps is not possible. LLMs are based on an architecture (transformers) that was originally designed for natural language translation, so it doesn't surprise me that they're good at this.

That's no consolation to all the people they're going to kill with them.

>my browser does that every time I visit a site

The purpose of a browser is to make network requests. If I use a browser, I am implicitly giving it consent to make the network requests necessary for the web browsing I do.

This implied consent does not cover unnecessary requests, e.g. the adverts Firefox displays on new tabs by default are unacceptable, because I did not consent to them being downloaded. It also does not cover the network requests made by opening the "Extensions and Themes" menu, because merely looking at a configuration menu does not imply consent to make network requests.

But that fact that modern web browsers are a privacy disaster does not excuse bad behavior from other software.

No matter how you encrypt the data, transmitting it unavoidably leaks the fact that you're running software that transmits that data. There's no way to mathematically prove this is harmless, because there's no way to know how that information could be used against in the future in ways you didn't predict.

No software should ever make network requests without your consent.

Lean's proof checker is reproducible, and has been independently reproduced several times. See:

https://arena.lean-lang.org/

>In order to trust it a formal verification is not enough unless it is human understandable.

The whole point of formal verification is to remove the necessity of understanding most of the work. We only need to trust the formalization of the problem statement, the proof verifier, and the formalization of the result. We already have proof verifiers that humans understand to a high level, and the formalizations of the problem statement and the result are much simpler than the full proof.

I'm confident that the Navier-Stokes equations can blow up because I'm confident that Lean works correctly, and I'm confident that the mathematicians verified the problem statement and result correctly. This is despite the actual proof not being human verified yet (as far as I know), and despite the "human-readable" version not actually corresponding to the formal proof. The formal method still worked.

>optimizes the keys for either reachability

It doesn't because it only has a single row of keys. Piano music is full of awkward finger crossings that could be avoided with multiple rows of keys like on the Jankó keyboard.

>or feeling

You can texture or raise/lower the keys on any keyboard as you please. No layout has an advantage here.

>the range for one hand is smaller than the guitar's

True, but the traditional keyboard is even worse.

>there's no bending/sliding/vibrato

Exactly the same as a traditional keyboard.

>it very quickly learns to work on "it's on adjacent lines therefore it's a third apart"

The problem is "a third apart" means different things depending on where on the diatonic scale that third is. What I actually care about is how many MIDI note numbers apart it is, because that's what corresponds to the finger positions on the instrument.

>G# and Ab aren't even played the same on some instruments

Seeing as we've freed up the sharp and flat symbols, we can repurpose them to mean adjustments by whichever comma is relevant.

>Light bulbs got 6x as efficient and roughly nobody wants 6x as much light.

I want more than 6x as much light as I had in the incandescent bulb era. Indoor lighting is usually very dim compared to outdoor lighting, and that makes it harder to see things. As I get older and my eyes degrade I expect I'll want even more light. People running offices understand this and provide more lighting than typical for homes. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lux

1-indexing in music is as much a mistake as 1-indexing in programming languages. The traditional interval names are mostly 1-indexed too, which just adds pointless complexity you have to compensate for whenever you're adding or subtracting. Only exception I can think of is the tritone, which is inconsistently 0-indexed (and in a different scale).

It's IMO crazy that going up seven scale degrees makes an "octave".

>They are not two different clefs, the are two halves of the same 11-line staff.

This is actually another reason to use an isomorphic/"chromatic" staff. If you prioritize data compression (traditional notation), you have 7 notes per octave + modifiers. If you prioritize linearity (isomorphic/"chromatic" notation), you have 12 notes per octave.

12 is an even number, meaning you can stack octaves and have consistent notation for each one. With traditional notation, you always have to keep track of which octave you're reading and adjust accordingly.

The value of data compression is greatly reduced now that we have tablet computers. This gives us instant page turning, so there's no longer a requirement to pack as much information on a page as possible to minimize the disruption of page turning.

Having to learn a different notation system for every key is IMO no longer a good tradeoff.

When I listen to a diatonic scale, I hear irregular spacing between the notes. (If you have difficulty hearing this, try singing portamento glides between them.) But the traditional staff represents this with regular spacing on the page. The premise of the site is designing notation where there's a direct linear mapping between position on the page and note number, without the need for a key signature to decode it. A C major scale should not be written with regular spacing on the page because the notes are not regular.

>This sharp resistance to minor personal inconvenience is bananas to me.

I assume you're in good health, not poor, in a stable living arrangement, etc. The burden of "minor personal inconveniences" depends greatly on how many inconveniences you already suffer. Somebody working two jobs doesn't have much spare energy for optimizing utility use.

>An EMajor chord is spelled E G# B, not E Ab B. Now if you spell that as 9 0 4 you have stripped all context out of the music.

True, but it's not a fatal flaw of the notation, because you can annotate it with written chord names above the notes. This is common in guitar tabs (which are almost isomorphic in standard tuning, and fully isomorphic in regular tunings).

But on an isomorphic keyboard you can just move your hand up or down and use the exact same fingering. You only have to learn how to play the scale once, not a different way for each key. You don't reference it to "C", you reference it to the first degree of the scale, and the key doesn't matter. IMO, the traditional keyboard has been obsolete ever since the Jankó keyboard was invented:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jank%C3%B3_keyboard

I like the use of base 12, but IMO it's somewhat wasted on a diatonic staff. This is basically just traditional notation with special coloring to make it easier to read. To better match the keyboard, I'd rather use an isomorphic staff (a.k.a. "chromatic staff", although I dislike that name because it implies diatonic music as a default).

There's a web site you might be interested in with many examples of isomorphic notation at:

https://musicnotation.org/

It's also easier to learn because there's one consistent mapping between notes on the page and the sound, instead of many different irregular mappings specified by "key signatures".

But traditional notation is more compact, and for music based around diatonic scales, implies information about the harmonic function of notes that could be useful for interpretation.

Hot and fast defrost doesn't heat the food as much.

That makes it inconvenient to read, not impossible. E.g. use transmitted instead of reflected light (shine a bright light behind the paper) to see how much ink is in each place.

>Banking apps closed 99% of high street banks (here in the UK at least).

I don't believe this is true. High street banks are still common. 99% closed means we previously had 100 times as many, which would be absurdly high. It's probably closer to 50% closed.

In the very long term, no. Can't beat thermodynamics. But ideally I'd prefer if life survived the next decade at least. That's looking unlikely with current AI progress.

There's always going to be a manager with access to keys. They get the HVAC tech on the phone and set the controls as instructed. They're still vulnerable to somebody scamming them into setting the controls wrong, but they at least have a chance of recognizing who they're talking to, and recognizing obviously crazy instructions (e.g. "turn the thermostat up to 50 degrees"). And even if they don't, the attack is a lot harder to scale with a human in the loop.

A phone call from the HVAC company and physical thermostat dial (in a locked cabinet to prevent incompetent/malicious employees tampering with it) seems a safer solution.

That doesn't excuse them being controllable over the Internet. I can understand that remote monitoring is important, but it's in a supermarket. There's always going to be somebody on site who can control things locally. The telemetry can be transmitted via data diode, automatically re-transmitting on schedule so there's no need for any remote control.

Extinction of all life.