aeim

I wonder if this case will be dropped by the uk, now that it's more clear that trump/ us gov serves (or is aligned with...) russia

The global landscape has changed significantly since (last week) this case began

well, after all we've been through together, i expect the french might find the opportunity for us to "owe them one, publicly" quite irresistible...

(which is significant because, "after all they went through the last few times", their "find out" policy is a little punchier than most)

and i don't think that anyone really wants that course of events...

and law (or justice), international or otherwise, doesn't really exist without money (or collateral)

what a web

Er, isn't it a bit manipulative to equate changing a software system with the more serious uses of that phrase?

+1

so, measuring progress by lines of knowledge added?

speaking openly

that kinda science seems like a bullshit factory (a very lucrative one, of course)

and analogous to an llm hallucination — shallow satisfaction of constraints by enumerating a problem space irrespective of contextual appropriateness, a liability, and forgotten as soon as real value comes along

surely the best science isn't just reproducible by scientists — engineers can get the grubby mits on it, to improve (ok, shape) the circumstances of our lives, and survival

that other stuff is busywork, not "literature". they are very different things...

i hear you ;)

although i'd counter with the idea that it isn't code-writing which we practice continually to master the art, but world modelling: we model the world within the constraints of code in our mind, to become experienced enough to do so reliably, then usefully within different contexts

code is the instrument, not the music

off topic, but i'm just not sure what american culture is anymore

the american dream apparently depended upon a willingness to shit on others for personal gain; i just don't think most engineers think like that?

law and order, checks and balances: lol (sad lol...)

send us your tired and weary... sigh, the one job that's been insourced it seems

a few times in the last month i've heard some tv/movie character pop out some line about americas greatness in the context of decency, or russia, etc, and boy, is that gonna date quick...

fucking hell my nerds, are we all sleepwalking through this shit or what?

Just "bad-sponsored"

Why artificially limit the (historical) set-of-all non-trivial revolutionary paradigms to the last century?

Current academia seem to treat the phd (implicit modern) as a minimal barrier to credibility (which is curious for several reasons). But given the modern phd is a relatively recent invention, this heuristic ought to exclude every paper written by those who predate this new form/ qualification. Of course, historic progress seems to be revered most of all

The point isn't to suggest that the modern form was beyond historical figures (though I suspect given the nature of earlier scientific progress many might choose to not endure the modern form), but more frame the question "had they (historical figures) been conditioned to think narrowly, within the contrived 'lanes' of modern isolated disciplines, would they still have thought as they did?"

All of Hofstadters "analogies which shook the world" (surfaces and essences) necessarily depend upon thinking across arbitrarily plural scopes of phenomena, and deeply — with commitment to the premise that the deepest understanding of our universe which that they might contribute to the endeavour, frames an implicit "universal general domain" of characteristic forms which apply universally. This is the opposite of isolated special-domain thinking/ stay in your lane/ etc

Education includes learning and conditioning. I wonder if the degree to which we stress test conditioning impacts ongoing learning, specifically open learning, learning across (artificial) boundaries of special-domains

> "what if we’re pouring more and more effort into research in an area, because our primary abstraction is wrong?

Absolutely; perhaps "thinking of knowledge in terms of physical environments" also helps to illustrate why – sometimes the only way to get to where we want to be, is to redefine where-and-how we begin

Concretely, looking up a unconquered mountain: it may seem as though many approaches are viable, but when attempt proves otherwise, the only option might be to return to base, and consider a new origin for approach

I think this also helps illustrate why "progress by accrual alone" is so inherently flawed. Sometimes you must begin again, in whole, but also in part – because "you can't get to anywhere from anywhere"

In fact, for almost all domains other than science, beginning again is such an optimal remedy to progress dead-ends, it's operational

Writers know what's up – kill your darlings. Software engineers too, famously – measuring software progress by lines of code added is counter productive – we learn to be unsentimental, delete and reconsolidate often. This is the continual redefinition of the "origin" of where we continue-on-from

Though it does require a change in perspective: written words, and lines of code – not as asset, but liability. Redundant words, code or literature, is contrived complexity. Unnecessary, and after a while, prohibitive to progress. I think science hasn't done this yet? – we know that naming things is hard, but perhaps for science, calling every artifact 'literature' doesn't help...

I also think that science catastrophically misunderstands "beginning again". Finding new origins is easiest for those who haven't been conditioned to only see one. It doesn't take magical genius, just (selective) ignorance. This is why (non-trivial) revolutionary paradigms often come from outsiders (or historical scientists who did not complete the endurance test of the modern day burden)

I can't help but think that scientific genius is based on "eh, fuck that, i'm sure there's a better way"

It's as if, when Kuhn wrote "Structute", a million normies cried out in pain, and because they'd already been conditioned to one origin, and couldn't stand the idea of "newbs" getting credit, vowed to prove that "progress by iterative accrual alone" was all that was necessary. And here we are

Yes -- I also wonder if a description involving learning plural software languages might fit:

1. Hack programmatic-functionality in a first language

2. Master the intricacies of a first language, understanding all programmatic concepts through the lens of that languages specific implementation-details. Pedantically argue with those familiar with different language implementations, due to a kind of implementation-plurality/ essential-form blindness

3. Learn additional languages, and 'see past' specific implementation details and pitfalls of each; develop a less biased understanding of the essence of any task at hand

and governments

different jobs, different tools, all hacks

ah, i see. a trOpenAIn horse.

wut?

i'm not even sure what your argument is:

- some people have tried and failed, so anyone else who tries is grandiose?

- anyone who ventures beyond streetlights is spouting hyperbolic nonsense?

and why: "creating claims in the hope that others are impressed"; rather than communicating ideas in the hopes of continuing a conversation?

- why didn't they just build it? eh, cause writing it up is the first step/ limit of budget/ project scope/ overall skill set/ etc

what a toxic take on the effort and courage required to explore and refine new perspectives on this important (and undoubtedly controversial) space

f###

covid is brutal. so is burnout. i reject the term psychosomatic in relation to what i'm pointing at, in either case

no

not all circumstances of all cases – and to be clear, covid is brutal, so is burnout. remember though, they aren't mutually exclusive

i've heard some speak of long-covid symptoms as if burnout, without other respiratory concerns. and given numbers of sufferers of both, there must be many who have experienced burnout before covid, so already make a distinction

where symptoms overlap, and circumstances align, the simplest explanation for those overlapping symptoms, might be the aligned circumstances; and anything we can do to simplify the problem space is worth exploring, in parallel, of course

huh?

I'm sorry to hear that.

This is an open question which I've pondered for a while (so atemerev, your circumstances may not align, but I hope you don't mind me asking it here):

> I wonder how often/ to what degree, circumstances of long covid might be attributed to individuals whom pre-covid were on the cusp of developing more severe symptoms of burnout or depression (for the first time), being abruptly nudged over that threshold?

It strikes me, this likely happened in some cases, such that some individuals simultaneously faced both kinds of cognitive phenomena for the first time

So implicit – I wonder how often the two are conflated? Or how one ought to reconcile specific (relevant) circumstances between long-covid, and burnout/ depression?

So back to yourself atemerev (with no assumptions): can you speak to this at all?

Many thanks

Hi vforissi,

The site looks like a clean implementation of a simple idea, allowing someone to acknowledge a negative event, and by expressing in words and externalising, let it go

On the below post, I wonder what your thoughts are on this kind of interpretation of depression? Does it fit with your understanding and the above method? https://fragments.themanual.io/zonal-ban/

yes, it's nuts

I'd phrase as 'depression is burnout of the self', or 'burnout is depression of non-self contexts' such as alternate, or specialist contexts, per project/ profession, etc. (with self simply being the default context)

Thanks for responding, to clarify:

It's a conceptual model and the abstraction is a computational system - as opposed to the current trend of Integrated Information Theory (IIT). Writing up seems to be the means to demonstrate for the time being. If I've misinterpreted please do correct me.

  - IIT is exotic and complicated. Simply reducing the bounds of any problem IIT might be needed to explain may help. I'm absolutely suggesting a more conventional and therefore accessible logical abstraction can explain much of what we see.
  - Perhaps analogous to 'you don't need blockchain or machine learning for that problem!'

The phrase 'bigger than one person' is also ambiguous - I simply meant in the volume of work required to demonstrate the scope of significance. Perhaps more specifically:

  - How might an independent researcher find collaborators with related tangential special interests or experience?

I appreciate I may have said more than you're interested in, but thanks for the opportunity to respond.

Thanks for the connect, I will.