aeonik

It's really inefficient to let people have access to electricity too.

Running all those lines, people don't even use it all that much.

Much more efficient to put everybody into camps, and simply have the people take turns using electrical appliances operating at 100% duty cycle.

Freight delivery speeds need to be brought down too, 35 MPH maximum.

Food? Give me break, get everyone on a Soylent Green diet.

Hams are like druids wandering in an Elven forest around these parts.

They are somewhat rare, have some cultural overlap, and definitely get free upvotes.

The main transmitter was 450kW but they had a MW transmitter too, EIRP with the high gain antenna was closer to 20TW.

https://www.seti.org/research/seti-101/project-phoenix/areci...

They used to use it to radar asteroids and sent a deep space message to try to contact aliens.

If only social media platform let individuals sort messages by time, and filter messages based on their friend groups, and weren't forced to view feeds controlled by algorithms they have no control or insight over.

I agree with everything you state about squeezing data out of sensors.

But, I also run into a LOT of cases where I need better sensors too. I just don't see them as mutually exclusive.

I did stick my comment into an LLM, annoying, I hand wrote the entire comment, and had it fact check my statements. Here is my original unmodified comment:

    Eh, there's too much here for me to give a proper reply.

    I agree with a lot of what you said, and I'm on team sensor, but I've been studying how the eye works and processes info.

    A *system* of many sensors can cover larger ground for sure... But I'm very interested in compact systems that can be better than the eye or ear, I know we can do it, I just haven't seen it yet.

     Also, AI and/or filtering can't give you data that wasn't picked up by the sensor in the first place.

     There are limits in the sensor, and there are also limits in getting the data off the sensor. That's true for biology and hardware.

    I'm pretty excited to get my hands of Quantum Dot cameras for example, but even they don't have the same Dynamic Range as the human eye, but could probably beat it with clever systems engineering.

Humans have better dynamic range for hearing and vision compared to any sensor I'm familiar with.

Human vision is also extraordinary sensitive, with some people being able to detect individual photons with their rod cells.

Lemma, Theorem, Proof, Repeat.

Arbitration in CAN is still one of the coolest things I've seen at the hardware layer.

Being able to handle a collision without needing the higher priority message to skip a single beat seemed like magic to me when I first learned about it

This would work, but the first stage hash is effectively the password at this point.

    Client:
        C = SHA256(password)
    
    Server:
        V = Argon2id(C, server_salt)
    
    Database:
        stores V and server_salt

It depends on the bacteria living in your mouth.

Some people get lucky, and even with low brushing, won't get cavities.

The point of a hash is that the password is not stored on the machine long term. Thus, if an attacker gains access to the back-end and exports all the hashes, you can't reuse the hashes themselves to login. I.e. you need to do a password-cracking attack, which is infeasible with a password of sufficient length.

I don't care if someone gets my password hash. They aren't going to crack it due to the complexity of it.

Here is my hashed password. Good luck:

    $argon2id$v=19$m=65536,t=3,p=1$YTE4NzBkMDIwMjRhMGY5NzU4OTc2ZWY5YzI0N2RjOTY$GSBlUwWxr4BBs+5o5Ye2NphT9PFeWx4ECG6siED9uVQ

You can't use that to login to my system. You can only use it to validate if I give you my password...

The mechanism proposed by the GP is not competence. It's a well-known vulnerability called "pass the hash".

This is incorrect implementation fyi.

You are supposed to send the password, via TLS so it's not in the clear, to the server to be hashed.

If you hash on the client... then the hash essentially becomes the password, and defeats the purpose of a hash. I could just steal the hash and use it.

The name of this vulnerability is "pass the hash"

The ice9 / grey goo of the biological world.

BOSL2 library combined with LLMs really make me fly with my creations.

But it can't verify that for generally intelligent copies of itself.

There is no way for it to formally verify large multi-agent dynamical systems.

It will still need a set of agreed upon behavioral protocols to keep things stable.

Grey goo or paperclip optimizers are real dangers, but super intelligence necessitates these protocols even more than lesser intelligences due to the high leverage and rapid evolution of the systems.

Down Gödel's incompleteness theorum make this a non starter?

Plus, we live in a physical world, glitches still happen.

If a rogue AI could self replicate and became space-faring, humans would pose literally no threat to them, and they would also never run out of resources.

If you don't need to breath oxygen, the atmosphere of Earth makes for a pretty terrible industrial base. Oxidation is a constant struggle to many processes.

Having natural extremes of temperature, cold sink and hot sink, with no atmosphere would be the ideal. E.g. Saturn's moon Iapetus would be a good AI outpost.

If an AI squashes any life form or intelligence other than its own, then it also has to fear its own reproduction, or autonomous clones of itself. It's a pretty bad strategy game theoretically speaking.

I mean, I care about ants, yea... I think they are very cool, and a lot of people work to conserve the existence of various species.

Most ants don't need our help though.

If we could speak ant, negotiating boundaries would save eachother a lot of trouble.

Sometimes I have day dreams of communicating with ants, and making a deal to have them help us build tunnels for subways.

I'd feel better if standard protocols and open datasets were maintained.

That way anybody could build their own "old search", or innovate off the global dataset.

No reason you can think of*

I can think of many reasons why they might share it.

One example, Golden rule, a contract that it enforces with its own self, extended to other agents, biological or artificial to ensure local and global stability.

Wait, I'm confused, are you arguing for or against S3? Did you mean factoring the time needed to obtain the multiple PhD levels of information in tracking the cost, usage, and security of those interoperable services plugged into S3?

Missing my biggest issues as you ask the agents to do larger tasks with less up front planning.

Is there already a pattern or code on in in the existing codebase that handles this functionality,

Do we really need net new code to achieve this functionality?

Can existing code be extended or abstracted to more cleanly implement this feature or functionality.

I think you are right, but this is a straw man.

There are some quantum consciousness cults out there, but plenty of people are interested in investigating the quantum nature of biological effects including consciousness that aren't quacks.

There is also a tendency for some scientists to react dismissively to hypotheses associated with pseudoscience, even when the narrower scientific question is perfectly legitimate.

Reminds me of the visceral reactions in history, like the Rejection of Continental drift (i.e. high level idea was right, but mechanisms hadn't been pinned down yet).

Not claiming that the quantum hypothesis is right, just saying we didn't jump to conclusions.

I've never understood this perspective.

The patterns that macros express are still there in the codebase, usually via uncompressed repetition.

You would need to learn the pattern regardless if you used a macro or not, and a macro at least formally codifies the repetition.

Indeed, one can make bad abstractions, or messy extensions to the macro, but that's true of functions or classes just as much.

Not supporting macros seems to me as an arbitrary limitation put in place as a stop gap for a symptom with a different root cause. (I.e. removing expressive power to solve poor engineering or immature macro tooling).

It's definitely easier to mess things up with macros, but it's also easier to mess more up the higher up you go in any abstraction ladder.

Now that I'm writing this comment, the very fact that we have to distinguish a macro vs regular code feels like a design smell to me.

Functions should operate on data or code, and controlling when it applies, comp time, run time, or some JIT, should be a separate lifecycle configuration detail, or decoupled in a different manner.

Not GP, but plutonium is overhyped in how scary it is.

Don't get me wrong, it's super deadly, but there are loads of toxins that are more deadly than plutonium. And while its radioactivity is seen as ultra scary, it's actually pretty nice, because you can at least detect it. Harder than beta or gamma, but still, it announces its presence.

How I wish I had a magic wand (spectrometer) that I could wave over my food to see if cyanide, ricin, mercury, or lead were there.

I hesitate to come to this conclusion.

When I was a kid, I could visualize things so vividly, I could almost overlay the visual signal onto my real visual field.

The visual cortex signal was "loud" enough that I could trick the propioceptive parts of my brain.

E.g. I could visualize falling so vividly that I would actually feel the stomach drop sensation.

As I get older, I still have a very visual mind, but not nearly what I used to have as a kid. It also feels more "far away" from my actual visual field.

Though some days if I'm stressed, I don't seem to have as much control/access to the visual side of things.

So I kinda get where aphantashisa people come from.

The currency press operator and manufacturer.

Two things:

1. Half of those drugs on the list do have medicinal uses.

Even methamphetamine and cocaine are used medicinally (admittedly rarely).

2. Tylenol poisoning is the leading reason for poison control center calls.

>80,000 U.S. Poison Control exposure cases in 2021 involving acetaminophen or an acetaminophen-containing product.

https://poisoncenters.org/news-alerts/13244374

Heroin (IV) ~6x

GHB ~8x

Ethanol ~10x

Methamphetamine ~10x

DXM ~10x

Cocaine ~15x

MDMA ~16x

Codeine ~20x

Methadone ~20x

Mescaline ~24x

Flunitrazepam ~30x

Ketamine ~40x

Phenobarbital ~50x

Nitrous oxide ~150x

LSD ~1000x

Cannabis/THC ~1000x or greater

Citation: Gable RS. Comparison of acute lethal toxicity of commonly abused psychoactive substances. Addiction. 2004;99(6):686–696. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00744.x