DigitalNoumena

3D Guide - How to Build the Perfect Medieval Castle https://youtu.be/Syjg6PHYFBo?si=JceRfeOks3hOVqWu

How to Lay Siege to a Medieval Fortress (1000-1300) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ7hTNoK-OA&t=1900s

Or even better, as the OP suggests standardise the format of the chunks and generate a hypothetical answer in the same format.

> Bassett hypothesizes that “in countries that have more structures of oppression or patriarchal forces, there may be a constraining of knowledge production that pushes people more toward this hyperfocus.”

PS. appreciate it if anyone can recommend more material like this

Realistically how many of the practical use cases where it’ll be applied will be OOD? If you can take GPT4 there then you are either a genius or working on something extremely novel so why use GPT4 in the first place?

I understand the goal is for LLMs to get there, but the majority of practical applications just don’t need that.

Cooperation is a choice, as you very well say immediately below the above statement.

The point is I see no evidence why HTTP is better for viewability than HTTPS. I showed there are cases where it’s not. You showed there are cases where it’s irrelevant. But the point remains… when is it worse and is it enough to sacrifice the security benefits?

> when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (…) and surrounded by a heat bath (…), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy.

To be honest I cannot go any deeper without reading the paper.

Could it be falsified? I think if you could show that natural selection led to the survival of less dissipative life forms then you could claim falsification.

Entropy (according to Boltzmann) is proportional to the number of microstates that can give rise to a particular macrostate of a system. The macrostate with the highest number of possible microstates is the uniform one, where all the accessible microstates are equally likely. So if by the 2nd law entropy must increase, the system will tend towards the uniform configuration.

In other words, if a force is pushing water, the configuration with the highest number of states is that where all the particles of water are also moving i.e. indistinguishable microstates, doesn't matter how you rearrange the moleculles, it will look the same as they are all moving uniformly. It would be extremely unlikely that there were a pocket of water that is mysteriously still in the middle of the stream no? Clearly there are not a lot of rearrangements of the mollecules that will keep the macrostate the same, so low entropy, which tends not to be the case.

I don't see why it would have to lead to a non-Darwinian explanation of evolution. As has been said by in the parent comment, survivability might just be a high-level manifestation of entropic drive of self-replicating systems. It's remarkable that this is a claim that can be falsified, whereas Darwinian evolution, well..

> I am just saying that from the perspective of the physics, you might call Darwinian evolution a special case of a more general phenomenon.

I think this is exactly alligned with your Newtonian-GR analogy.

> The overarching goal for humanity is to preserve the light of consciousness.

If all physical processes are subservient to a thermodynamical "telos", how could any manifestation of free will emerge? Not even going to get into how problematic it is to cite conciousess as a fundamental goal of when we cannot even assess its existence in other beings.

> Technology and market forces (technocapital) are accelerating in their power and abilities. This force cannot be stopped.

What? Cannot be stoped? How could humanity possibly play any role in an unstoppable process? Surely no one can deny capitalism to be the result of specific choices in human history? Hence why we can concieve alternatives to capitalism and can very well choose them over capitalism.

> Technocapital can usher in the next evolution of consciousness, creating unthinkable next-generation lifeforms and silicon-based awareness.

Can? How could it not if the claim is that it's unstoppable? Concisouness again?

> HUMANS HAVE AGENCY RIGHT NOW. WE CAN AFFECT THE ADVENT OF THE INFLECTION IN THIS PROCESS

Scratches head...

I would love to have a rigorous debate about some of these ideas but come on... I was recently in an X space with some of the writers of this manifesto and was very disappointed.

That being said:

> Devices likely to be affected by the certificate expiry are those that don’t get updated regularly, like embedded systems that are designed not to automatically update or smartphones running years-old software releases. Users running older versions of macOS 2016 and Windows XP (with Service Pack 3) are likely to face issues, along with clients dependent on OpenSSL 1.0.2 or earlier, and older PlayStations that haven’t been upgraded to newer firmware.

Still not convinced we can claim HTTPS should not be used in the general, or in this particular, case.

HTTPS is secure -> a bug made 2.6% of all certificates less secure -> that's why we shouldn't use HTTPS?

I'm quite confused how that holds logically. You can either argue HTTPS is fundamentally not secure or is irrelevant; or regret that there was a bug but support using HTTPS

The whole video is great, but particularly this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BNIkw4Ao9w&t=1063s

https://doesmysiteneedhttps.com/

There are a lot of arguments about why, even non-secret data connections need encryption. The first and most obvious is that not doing so immediately puts a target on the encrypted data.

By no means an expert but to me it seems like an oversight not to.