Al-Khwarizmi

I got mad and that same night, ragebooked a flight and hotel in the south of Spain for next year's one, at that point I still managed to find something that was only somewhat overpriced but not outrageously so. If next year's plan also fails somehow, it will be a signal that I need to go to Beijing in 2035.

If you went back to when I started working on AI stuff 20+ years ago and described the capabilities of GPT-3 to people, the overwhelming majority would say it's a form of AGI. It's incredible how fast and far the bar moves.

I remember playing Real Lives 2004 (or maybe 2007) and 2010, both good. I think there are later versions but I had heard they had changed philosophy somehow and some people weren't satisfied (they said they went overboard with educational elements on top of the raw life simulation), so I can't vouch for those.

I don't know if 2010 would be easy to play in today's computers. Now I'm curious, I might try for old times' sake.

A version with the whole history of humanity, like what htis website aims to be but fails, would be amazing if it existed.

But yes, little bits of subjective introspective evidence (like that one, and also mostly ignoring visual descriptions in books, and the perception of having no mental images at all that is asked by the standard self-report tests, and so on) add up and make me 99.9% sure I have aphantasia. It's just that it would be nice to have the objective unambiguous external test, the silver bullet, to be totally sure that they're not a bunch of busses in a trench coat as so many honest beliefs are.

All the easily accessible aphantasia tests (such as the one in this link) seem to rely on subjectively deciding whether you "see" or not. But this "seeing" seems to be a metaphor (even people who claim to be non-aphantasiacs will concede that it's not literally like seeing), so how do I know that other people aren't having essentially the same internal experience but choosing different words to describe it?

It also doesn't help that it doesn't seem to have any bearing on cognitive ability, or ability to perform tasks that one could effectively measure. I have never felt like I can't do something because I have aphantasia. I have seen people mentioning difficulty on problems where you need to mentally rotate a cube, but I can do that just fine - it's just that I don't "see" or "picture" the cube, but I still have the concept in my mind of the cube being in a certain orientation and that suffices to solve the task.

I have read that there are some tests for aphantasia that don't ultimately depend on introspection and vocabulary (e.g. pupils reacting to imagining something bright or dark, see https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35356890/) but I haven't found anything that I can do at home to be sure that I'm really aphantasiac and not just pessimistic about describing "inner images". If anyone knows such a test that one can do at home, I would be very interested.

Many of those strip mahjong games are interesting in terms of aesthetics and could be potentially very fun, but they are very blatantly rigged. They typically let you win the first match by giving you a highly improbably good hand, and then do the opposite in the second or third. This quite detracts from the fun, and I pity the people who put many actual coins in them.

I liked to play the ones that had at least one or two matches that felt more or less fair (typically the second and third, or so). I vaguely remember Mahjong Erotica Golf (yes, a mahjong game that drives a golf game that in turn drives porn) as being one of the best in terms of giving a fair challenge.

I got mad and ragebooked a flight to Málaga to see next year's one :D

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

I always make an effort to buy books I really like (or expect to really like) in hardcover. This is because, around 20 years ago, I found some shelves full of books in a house belonging to some ancestors of mine. The books ranged from maybe 60 to 120 years old and had been unattended maybe for 40 or 50 years. At a first glance, all the books looked fine, but when picking them up, the paperback books literally crumbled in my hands and were unsalvageable. The hardcover ones were fine and I still have some with me now.

The thing is, lately hardcover runs of most books seem to be pitifully small. They print a few at the beginning and then they switch to paperback only. Often I want to buy a book that is only 5 or 10 years old, and almost no one has the hardcover. Those who do often demand extortionate prices. It's not uncommon to see regular hardcover editions of regular books with nothing special from 10 years ago, with retail price around €20, sell second hand for €100.

So if you consider that paperbacks aren't valid for preservation because they will crumble sooner than later, there will be many books with a rather small number of copies available.

Interested because my son is learning to write and is the only leftie in the family, so I struggle to help him.

Are you sure? Maybe some of them are, but it's also quite typical of rich people to live in a refurbished 19th century home with ornate mouldings, antique furniture, bookshelves, rugs, paintings, and a large amount of carefully curated "clutter". While working-class people almost universally move towards minimalism when they renovate, with the rich it's much more divided.

On the one hand, "Eyes and brain alike evolved over millennia to process natural scenes, forests, rivers, coastlines, open skies. These environments share a specific mathematical pattern: their visual complexity decreases predictably as you zoom in on finer and finer details" - What, isn't it just the opposite? Coastlines and many plants are famously fractal, and in general, if you zoom into nature you will see a lot of detail, while in artificial objects you will often see a uniform sufrace.

On the other hand, "Repetitive grids, stark contrasts, and uniform surfaces have replaced the organic variation of earlier styles" - Okay, I get that grids are bad, but if the problem is too much detail and visual stimulation, why are uniform sources a problem? Is high complexity good or bad?

The only clear ideas that I take from this is that grids = bad, and flickering LED lightning = bad (and I don't really know how to choose LEDs that don't flicker...).

Toning down the snark, to be honest, most places in countries like France and Germany didn't have AC because up to a few years ago, maybe they'd seriously need it one week per year or so... it didn't make sense for them to have it just to keep it turned off 99% of the time. I'm sure they will adapt, but it always takes some time to change the old ways.

We will get the same migration policy (maybe with some purely aesthetic changes for show), but with the whole kit of fawning over Trump and the US, denying or minimizing climate change, cutting taxes for the wealthy, privatizing public services and so on.

The problem is that the right is poised to win the next election and will probably undo all the policies you like. They're pretty much against everything that has been done in the last 7 years. I still have some hopes that Sanchez might clinch another term because he's a political survivor, but prospects are not great.

But of course, saying "in Europe..." is always risky. Europe is very diverse.

I think your vision of how the rest of the US sees the world is tinted by a massive bias.

Is it really true for most people that they are using their core advanced skills 90% of the time? I'm curious about how people feel about this.

I'm a professor, which is supposed to be an intellectually demanding job. I do research in NLP/AI, and I don't think AI will replace my core intellectual tasks in the near future, but I don't think my core intellectual tasks represent even 10% of my time. Most of the time is taken by various things like writing bureaucratic reports, writing and polishing grant applications, grading exams and exercises, designing a poster, planning a course's calendar for a given year, creating a figure for slides, writing assignments and exams, attending teaching coordination meetings... which definitely are or should be automatable. Probably even teaching the same lesson for the umpteenth time also is from an objective point of view, we'll probably be kept doing it due to the human factors driving motivation but not because a lecture given by a human is intellectually superior.

This is about players all over the world contributing scans of their own countries to US military, though.

Sports betting places on the other hand have multiplied like fungi in the last two decades, unfortunately.