tempguy9999

Genuine question, it can't possibly be reachable on 127 anyway can it?

Put another way, what's the difference between 0 and 127 here? What makes it safer? TIA

I'd actually agree with you, that I misrepresented him (and didn't check the meaning of civilisation - good catch there!) except for his last line, to wit "Perhaps the Ancient Intelligence can help retain our humanity as we transition?"

I take 'humanity' here to mean not doing the evils I was talking about - but which ancient cultures did in fact do in horrible abundance.

Pretty silly suggestion if you knew a bit about ancient history, or not so ancient.

Slavery, oppression by any means (taxation or force), fights to the death as entertainment, hideous punishments, genocide, immense inequity, tyrants killing at whim, women usually treated like crap, forced prostitution, rape with little or no recourse for the victim, minimal to no education for most... which part of that do you consider civilised.

> We create our own reality

Try living with long-term chronic pain, disability and flaky mental health. Then tell me it's all in the mind.

Oh god yes. But you can't trust any organisation in general that's grown large and is profit-oriented.

This isn't quite in line, as it's about the 1960s when they were going mad with new drugs, IIRC a sleeping pill was sold that had a barbiturate shell that knocked you out. This was designed to take ~8 hours to dissolve away, and at the core was a lump of amphetamine to bounce you back to eager wakefulness.

Granted people were a bit naive back then but it must have been obvious such things were not intrinsically safe, but dammit we have sales targets!

I worked in the area and I remember being told a story about a drug being approved for use based on the word of the top exec of the drug's manufacturer that it was safe, and a handshake. That's all. This would be in the late 70's. Things have been very much tightened up since then, but still.

True, but "should not be there in the first place" is a moral judgement - no-one should have to deal eg. with clinical depression or intense anxiety, or psychosis. Or painful arthritis or the rest of the evils a biological entity is prone to. But reality cares not for your or my opinion.

Having taken a couple of psychiatric drugs over a long period (antidepressents - ADs), I',m not sure where your claim that "they're addictively mood enhancing" comes from. IME ADs aren't. My brother has needed to take many more (edit: diverse kinds, not just ADs). I don't think he found them addictive (or even useful).

Why do you feel they are?

"patio"? I assumed you meant Patois, but I'm not sure now.

Thank you, interesting but not what I heard. It was just 3 chords repeated, nothing else but the singing. It was very minimal. But thanks anyway!

Highly off-topic but maybe someone can help, The title rang bells for a bit but turns out the wrong ones.

There was a track I heard by terry callier (not collier) which had 3 chords (not 4), repeated slowly over and over, and sung over. I loved it, does anyone have any idea what that may be. I did some digging but never found it again.

Please flag if too far OT, thanks.

Just a note, as a brit I've heard the term ponce, used in the sense of scrounging, exactly once in my whole life. A mate told me how she wanted to get into a punk gig and was down in the underground 'poncing for money'. Cue my raised eyebrows 'till she explained.

You're assuming it (edit: non-emotional intelligence) is one single unified thing. I'd say there are many kinds of intelligence, and many things that feed into intelligence that, if modified, could affect it (very simple example, anxious people may freeze up during exams which makes them look less good).

Let them go and you have no definitional basis on which to argue, and then how can you engage? I can't see any debate can be at all possible like that.

As a general principle agree your definitions before you lock horns and you'll start getting somewhere, if no further than agreeing to disagree.

That's not what was asked for. However I understand where you're coming from and am with you. I wish I had the chance to use TLA, or all the other goodies that seem ruled out by the results now and damn the bugs! mindset.

The CCP controls the markets. It's not a free market and thus not capitalism (I am ready to be corrected on any of these points).

But that's an aside, the point is that exploitative labour practices come about because of what @netsharc says. You've sidestepped his and my point.

If it was you or your children in a sweatshop you mightn't be so gung-ho.

I can't see any reason to downvote this, I don't think it's at all wrong.

I don't know if this is what you're asking but I'll reply from a different perspective, as many here are giving excellent technical responses.

Tech of any sort is a tool, just like a hammer or screwdriver, but more complex. It is only a tool.

A tool's value is in it's use, not its existence. Having the very latest high-end computer or flattest laptop is worthless unless you use it (then watch 95% of them ignore it, because Teh Shiny!).

The collection/distribution of data is power. That power may be benign but usually isn't... Teach them to understand how it can be misused (in fact tell them to imagine they were head of FB and ask them to abuse user's data) so they have some idea of when that misuse involves them. They can then maybe evaluate the worth of social media a bit better (not to put any of them off social media, just give them better understanding so they can suss the cost/benefit).

Tech as a tool has consequences. There are ethical implications in developing software/hardware for eg. use by oppressive governments. You can't make their moral decisions, nor should you, but you can tell them they must consider the consequences before accepting work[0]

Tech's sophistication, both in use (browsing the web) or its creation (programming is a wonderfully constructive activity) can be addictive. Don't let it destroy your social life. Also if you're having a less-than-delightful childhood/life, it can become an escape (but not a good one. Experience talking here).

The creation of an internally beautiful program gives no indication of its worth to the world. Therefore teach them to make business decisions before starting to do the technical stuff - is it intended to be of worth just to them? OK, it's a bit of fun. Is it intended to be open source and "blow people away"? Make sure there's a need for it or they're wasting their time[1]

Basically, teach them the wider context.

IMO, YMMV, etc.

[0] as someone will inevitably challenge me on this, yes I do before accepting work.

[1] I nearly got involved in some open source, then saw it being worked and reworked at one person's whim. It was never going to succeed. I wasted a lot of my time doing something that I later realised was not of use to anyone. That was months utterly lost and nothing to show for it.

iterally DDG'ing "tla industry" gets you stuff eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TLA%2B#Industry_use.

Another 20 seconds gets you https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/tla/industrial-use.html

Belief it's an accident vs belief it's human agency. Perhaps.

> In a world where everyone seems to think solutions to problems are always about...

"everyone"? "always"? Your generalisations may be doing as much harm as anyone you're criticising.

Go to your profile, set showdead to Yes, then you'll see nuked comments.

It was just some silliness about sexism. Mild troll or weak humour, can't tell.

Very curious, can you give a few examples of these rules?

I've read the wiki page and still don't get what the big deal is about the ackermann function. Can someone explain? TIA

Maybe. I recall shortly after sept 11th 2001 when there was general panic in the US, some guy there was arrested for possessing a book. He'd just taken it out of the library.

Here in the UK there are deliberate 'chilling effect' laws which are meant to discourage trying something by making them sufficiently unspecified as to catch anything the government wants to (heard about these on the radio 4 programme 'file on 4', it was about export restrictions).

Western governments are vastly better but they can do the same filthy tricks when it suits them.

I realise people don't care. I don't understand how they can so freely ignore that this has consequences and not always even long term ones.

Given that I do recognise people won't change, would it help if I did learn to understand their builtin magic curtain / SEP field[0]?

I ask with no hope any more, what do you advise?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEP_field

People always do the right thing and don't dither, don't procrastinate, always evaluate the long term consequences? Sure they do.

That's very civil of you, upvoted. OK, now I can answer. It's all a balance of investment, payback (which can be direct - "gets me a job" - and nebulous life-quality stuff - "that's interesting!") and erm, my lifespan.

I try to make those tradeoffs consciously. If I decide x is valuable but boring, these days I'll measure it against other priorities, if it wins I force myself to do it.

So I try. It's an acquired skill which I'm still working on.

It would be a better question if you asked it fairly: "Have you already learned everything". I did not suggest or imply 'everything' should be learnt.

I can't accept that not caring is ok. The small "I don't care" extends into "I don't care about anything outside my immediate environment" and that has political and eventually global consequences.

If their bank account is drained they will care, and get angry, and then maybe do something (but preferably the bank will recompense them in which case they feel better and go back to not caring).

Some stuff you just can't do; as you say the world's too large, but many people don't want to put in the effort to learn stuff that would benefit them immediately, never mind over the longer term.

I really do not understand people.

It's a good question. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permafrost

"In areas not overlain by ice, [permafrost] exists beneath a layer of soil, rock or sediment, which freezes and thaws annually and is called the "active layer". [...] Active layer thickness varies with the season, but is 0.3 to 4 meters thick (shallow along the Arctic coast; deep in southern Siberia and the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau)"

So I guess the freeze/thaw may allow heavier object to sink in over time, and there may be rivers, earth movement (related to permafrost, or unrelated - like landslides- (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permafrost#Landforms for examples), and other processes that deposit earth.

I don't know though.

BTW stunning picture of block of ice in permafrost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Permafrost_-_Massive_buri... It looks like the mcGuffin for a horror/sci-fi film.