Imagine you are an advanced civ with weapons hardly imaginable to current humans. Anti-Matter bombs, GRB strength energy weapons, etc, who even knows what is possible. With weapons like that even a run of the mill rogue political group, terrorist or whoever could probably trivially destroy an entire planet. It stands to reason that if they are able to continue to exist as some kind of multi-planetary species they have figured out a way to avoid killing themselves.
>The US is a great place to live and work with tremendous upward mobility
Always confused by this notion. People act as if the US is the only place this is possible but not only is it possible in most of the western world, there is in fact BETTER mobility in the much of the western world relative to the US. The US isn't even in the Top 10!
For you, it seems that "tremendous" means best in class. Where is the cutoff, 1st, 3rd, top 10?
For others, being in the top 10 percent of 195+ countries is quite significant. For the average person in the rest of the world, being in the US would provide a significant and meaningful increase in their economic mobility.
Pretty confused by the downvotes. People don't like data?
I mean in fact it's worse than people think and you are no longer likely to make more than your parents when a few decades ago you had a 90% chance of doing so.
Not to be that guy but did anyone read the 2 sentence wiki?
"Gridcoin attempts to address and ease the environmental energy impact of cryptocurrency mining through its proof-of-research and proof-of-stake protocols"
Feels like a quarter of the comments are complaining about PoW ...
>Whats the use for the coin? Its an incentive obviously but its only so because it has a price tag. Who should buy the coin from me if I "mined" one and what would he do with it?
This is the same for any crypto coin. Certainly not unique to Gridcoin.
Bitcoin was mean to be p2p cash. It has no legitimate use case anymore as it obviously failed to be p2p cash.
Ethereum tried to be many things mostly a decentral computer. Turned out to be a super expensive decentral computer and that it isn't really so decentral in the current version.
However its technically used this way by some people so that de-facto means it has a valid use case.
It can hardly compete against newer similar projects but thats another story.
The Bitcoin idea didn't fail to be cash. BTC failed to be cash because it forced a permanent 1mb block size limit. If you want to see the original Bitcoin idea working as a charm, use Bitcoin Cash (BCH).
Well if its meant to be used as p2p cash but can not be used in this manner since many years that ticks all the boxes for me to call it failed. but you are entitled to your own opinion on this.
BCH solves nothing, the larger block size may allows some more Tx but you still have 10min block times and then wait for however many confirmation blocks you want. Not exactly how I imagine p2p cash is supposed to work.
and if the throughput would reach the new max with the new block size it would suffer exploding fees just like the "main" bitcoin. It does not scale better it just has a higher limit not one that would allow any meaningful throughput to use it as a global p2p cash system. no one has it to use it as p2p cash. Everyone has it to sell it for profit later on.
Why is this surprising? Has anyone been inside a Chemistry or Bio lab? You think that what happens in those labs to get research done is industrial grade?
The same could be said about flowers.com, macys.com, or literally any company doing business on the internet. Scale is basically a solved problem so pretending that AirBnb is a "Tech Company" or that they have any interesting tech is incredibly naive.
Once macys.com gets a page with all the tech they open-sourced that is actually used at a ton of places outside of the company, similar to that of Airbnb[0], then we can talk.
Out of the ones I personally worked with, Enzyme[1] is pretty much the de-facto industry standard for writing React unit tests. Airflow[2] is used very commonly (our team at a big known non-tech company I used to work at used it about 5 years ago), and so is Lottie[3]. And these are just the ones off the top of my head, given that I actually got to use those. They have many many more that seem to have a pretty high usage. And their tech blog is very insightful, I learned quite a bit from it myself when it comes to my development skills.
And no, I neither was nor currently am employed by Airbnb, not a big user of theirs, not paid to say any of this, and I have no particular liking towards them at all.
> Everyone is allowed to copy Stockfish/Leela and sell them, provided the terms of the Stockfish/Leela license are met. But don’t pretend that the product being sold is something it isn’t.
What's the issue? Did OS contributors suddenly realize you can make money off software? They're upset at marketers doing marketing?
Don't understand the downvotes. If they violated the terms of the license or did something illegal then sue, otherwise they're just whinging.
“It is sad to see claims of innovation where there has been none, and claims of improvement in an engine that is weaker than its open-source origins. It is also sad to see people appropriating the open-source work and effort of others and claiming it as their own.”
The only people who can enforce the GPL are the people who own the copyright of the code infringed. They may be able to win huge fines, but (with some infamous exceptions) generally aim more for compliance than punishment.
>It's a scam (it doesn't even use the best version of stockfish, so much for "the best chess engine available").
Have you used the internet or turned on a Tv in the last 20 years? Do you really think Dodge has "The Best Truck in the world" or that Verizon really has the "fastest 5g in America". This is marketing 101 for any business in the US.
If a seller only gets sales because of the ignorance of their customers, it's a rip off. I'd be annoyed if my work was being used to rip people off, even if no licence terms or laws were being broken.
Apart from the question of legality of removing copyright notices/changing authorship (which is definitely a copyright violation in some jurisdictions), there is more than just legality.
One can (and most people do) condemn some actions even if they are technically legal.
I don't think any of the ideas in this article have any evil intent, even if they have evil results.
1. Relative timestamps are just a more useful way of telling people when something happened. It's how most humans communicate time to each other.
2. Infinite scrolling is just what happens when you're not constrained by physical pages. The only reason we used to see paged content was because it was technically easier. Facebook and Instagram even put up a big "You're all caught up" sign when you hit the end of where you were last.
3. Before Facebook had likes people would just add a comment like "+1" or "This." It didn't add anything to the conversation and just made things worse. Internet points are useful for filtering content and showing people more useful information.
Yes, all of these things have negative consequences but that doesn't mean they're inherently bad.
The medium is the message. We've been talking about this for decades - the structure of the thing you are interacting with determines how you interact with it. Substantive debate is difficult in 140 characters, so substantive debate does not often happen on Twitter. Infinite scroll and auto-play video eliminates the "decision points" where people would otherwise reconsider if they want to continue, so people spend more time on those sites than they would otherwise. Maybe the attributes of these mediums aren't "inherently bad," but they absolutely do influence the way that they are used and it is up to us to make the judgement of whether that has good or bad outcomes. And a lot of us think the results of infinite scroll is a bad outcome.
My understanding is that Hacker News currently paginates comments but they’re working hard to put them all on one page.
Maybe the intent is so you can use find in page to search all the comments at once or maybe something else but they will also inevitably lead you to read more comments and spend even more time on here.
> Substantive debate is difficult in 140 characters, so substantive debate does not often happen on Twitter.
When it comes to politics, Twitter is the absolute worst. When you have only 140 characters, there's no room for nuance or actual discussion, so arguments get boiled down to short 1-sentence zingers that are often nothing more than really bad straw men.
I think that's kind of an overagressive interpretation. It's not ignorance of evil; there's a genuine feeling that good is being done, even if the parent commenter seems to acknowledge that good might not have, in fact, been done.
I'm simply asserting that a lack of free will constitutes lack of control over one's own thoughts. Do you disagree with this or am I just not communicating well?
Edit: I'm also not saying anything that hasn't been said before. Just because you personally haven't read the authors or pieces that agree with my point of view doesn't mean they don't exist.
I'm not aware of anyone making the argument that without free will knowledge does not exist.
And really the situation is simple. Either you believe in determinism or you believe in libertarian free will. The problem is that one of these beliefs is supported by science and the other requires magic.
Can you explain this further? It sounds an awful lot like you're dismissing my viewpoint without really putting an effort in to argue your side, which would be rude. While that may be the case, I'm going to overlook it.
The argument isn't directly that knowledge requires free will, but rather that you can't, as a mere product of some chain of events, be a reliable source. This isn't an argument against determinism so much as it is against naturalism.
I would also argue against determinism in some respects, but my thoughts about events being predetermined are a bit more complex. I would say that just because something is pre-known doesn't require it to be pre-determined. To say such a belief requires magic is a little flippant, I think.
Our universe and everything in it exist as they are in a moment of time. Our attempts at reasoning about the universe have given us some degree of accuracy in describing it. But the fact remains that whatever ideas and supporting science we come up with are just that, ideas and science. Reality trumps it all. So--while you can _say_ things in whatever tone you like and alienate or belittle folks who don't believe the same things you do--I would say that how we as humans show love for each other is much more helpful, and that it's okay to admit we don't know nearly as much about the world as we think we do.
>It sounds an awful lot like you're dismissing my viewpoint without really putting an effort in to argue your side, which would be rude.
You are the one making grand claims so you should be the one supporting them. My position is that of the majority of professional Physics and Philosophy communities which is that the universe is deterministic and libertarian free will is a fantasy.
>I would also argue against determinism in some respects, but my thoughts about events being predetermined are a bit more complex
Well show some proof and claim your Nobel Prize.
> The argument isn't directly that knowledge requires free will, but rather that you can't, as a mere product of some chain of events, be a reliable source.
You are just saying this, it doesn't follow from any Philosophical argument that I can see
Honestly I think your argument boils down to "The absence of free will makes me uncomfortable so therefore it can't be true," this isn't unique to you either most of the people on that side of the fence's arguments tend to come down to that.
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason for supposing that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically.
[end quote]
If you truly can't see how nonsensical it sounds to say on the one hand, "The universe is just a random assortment of matter that happens to have resulted in consciousness, but it's all simply an effect to some original Cause and no more," and then on the other hand argue over claims of logic, reason and truth--I'm not sure I can help you any further along.
>If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason for supposing that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically.
Oh man, Haldane wrote this 100 years ago so it must be true amirite?
All Philosophers and Physicists are crushed by these 2 sentences...
>If you truly can't see how nonsensical it sounds to say on the one hand, "The universe is just a random assortment of matter that happens to have resulted in consciousness, but it's all simply an effect to some original Cause and no more," and then on the other hand argue over claims of logic, reason and truth--I'm not sure I can help you any further along.
It's not nonsensical. Your statement is actually nonsensical. If you found a mathematical proof written by an illiterate schizophrenic the only thing that matters is the consistency of the proof's logic not its source. Maybe you should read actual philosophers instead of the centuries old writings of a Biologist.
The laws of physics are true as we know them, it is completely irrelevant if the minds that came up with ways to describe them have no free will. Your position is completely untenable and unsupported. You would fail Philosophy 101 at any community college if you wrote a paper on your position.
First you say, "I don't know anyone who has ever said this," all the while appealing to the age and authority of your own philosophy. Then I bring you evidence that people have been saying this for 100 years and you imply it's too old to be relevant.
And really, why would I care about whether my ideas would receive good marks or not from the most ego-stroking subject in all of modern academics? My philosophy professor at university was a self-absorbed little man who I didn't envy then and still don't 15 years later. Why would I bother having an authentic discussion with such a person?
Two obvious hallmarks of disingenuous debate are belittlement and sarcasm.
