blagie
Resources like gold, land, or bitcoin, if broadly used, is deflationary as the economy grows, even from simple issues like population growth. All else being equal, if I save $100 today, and the economy triples, it's worth $300, since I have the same piece of a bigger pie.
That's probably socially harmful, but it is the claim.
Glad to shoot a message if you have an email, linkedin, whatsapp...
Most of the rest of my papers were in completely different disciplines.
It was an awesome paper -- in my mind, groundbreaking -- but I'm not convinced anyone beyond the reviewers ever read it. I see about a dozen citations which popped up years later, clicked through a few, and they were inane.
Problem is it was work in a very, very classical field, alongside Butterworth, Chebyshev, and similar, and while quite fundamental, and with many applications, there is no contemporary research there.
My most popular papers were mostly rather.... random.
In my academic career, I had one instance of reviewers actually reading a paper. Otherwise -- accept or reject -- the comments made clear the paper had never been actually read.
Retractions are non-existent, even with clearly proven academic malpractice.
1.5M-2M is sort of the price range for something big, nice, and not car-dependent right now. You can find things less nice below that.
If you're willing to go as far out as Nieporęt or Grodzisk Mazowiecki, there's a ton of things below that. It's certainly not car-dependent; lots of stores nearby, but it is a decently long train ride if you want to come into Warsaw more frequently, at least if you mind working on a train.
If you don't mind car-dependent, it's a lot cheaper than that. Places outside of Otwock, near Park Kampinoski, and similar can be had for a song.
For the same price, one can find a full house, bordering on 300m², in the forests around Warsaw.
I would have loved to have bought into the tricity area a half-decade ago.
Digital trespass, intent is generally required, but the definition of "intent" varies by circuit in rather interesting ways. I don't think OpenAI could be prosecuted criminally under current US laws due to those wrinkles (which is a problem with current US laws).
It's system-wide.
It's not that rule-of-law was ever perfect in the US, but it was ahead of the world, and ahead of where it is today. Probably, it peaked a little bit after cases like Brown v. Board through around 1990.
From 1800-1900, there were more serious issues than today, obviously, but the baseline of comparison globally were largely dictators, kings, warlords, ..., as well as fledgling systems like the French Revolution and the Haitian Revolution.
1900-1960, the baseline was 2nd and 3rd world.
Today, the US is no longer in the lead, and to the contrary, towards the tail end of democratic developed countries. That's also a bigger club than in 1950.
As far as I can tell, the solution isn't nearly that hamfisted. It requires:
- Reinstituting rule-of-law (not just Trump; the whole system)
- Instituting basic proper management of funds
In Europe, I can walk into a government agency and be done in 15 minutes, with a smile from the administrator, for what would take months of fighting in the US. If a part of the government is breaking a rule, I can point them to it, and they'll follow it. Courts are slow, but follow clear laws; I don't see black robe syndrome. And police follow and enforce laws.
US used to be closer to that too; it actually led the world in good governance for much of history.
That's hard work of diving in and cleaning up every piece of the administration. There's no stomach for that. Until there is, the deficit will keep going up.
If ML + robots can be produced for fewer resources than it takes to feed and house a human, then no reasonable amount of human labour will be sufficient to pay for robots+compute.
We may have a bust, with broad overcapacity and cheap, distributed ML compute. We may have the paperclip problem, where datacenters and fabs are taking over all reasonable resources and humans squeezed out. We may have everything in between.
Thank you.
That sucks. It's a helpful term. Now, it's politicized.
Whose loyalty test? How?
I mostly heard "super intelligence" a long, long time ago in the context of work on AI / philosophy / futurism which, honestly, sounded pretty detached until the current deep learning sprint, and now sounds pretty prophetic.
My AI is regularly solving master's thesis level, and sometimes Ph.D thesis level problems for the purpose of, e.g. routine tasks like filling out random paperwork.
It's been very odd.
I'd only assume Nadella has access to more advanced models than I do, just as much as I have more advanced models than my relatives.
"We have a permit."
It costs around $200 at City Hall to pick up a permit.
- Pollution
- Noise
Regardless of the source. If someone comes up with a magic silent gas leaf blower which doesn't pollute, that's okay.
Is dumb.
You want comprehensive enforcement with reasonable penalities.
You don't want draconian laws randomly enforced.
No. He can't. Literally.
In a competitive ecosystem, one needs to play to maximize profit sufficiently optimally to remain in business. Otherwise, the business dies, and another one succeeds.
His hands are tied.
If I am in a business making toxic food, and the whole industry is plagued by scandal, as much as:
- I might not want to make toxic food
- The whole industry might benefit from less scandal
- The world as a whole might be a better place
The invisible hand of the free market might force me to keep doing so. Otherwise, I go in the red, and go out-of-business. And if I go out-of-business, someone similar but even less ethical will take my place.
That's why business leaders often do horrific things, while calling for regulation to stop them.
Free markets optimize. Regulations set the constraints of that optimization.
> I will back down from my claim that Minsky did have sex with Virginia Giuffree
And then continue to argue basing your arguments on that "fact." You have some kind of vendetta. It's not grounded in evidence, and you're willing to contort facts around that vendetta.
And you write things like:
> if you did what you are demanding of me, you would have already apologized several times
What I'm asking you to do is to not spread baseless accusations, especially about someone who can't defend themselves because they passed away.
The people you should apologize to aren't myself, but the people whom you slandered.
What do I have to apologize for, in your mind?
This doesn't seem like rocket science. If I am e.g. at a dinner party with my spouse, I might be aware there was no opportunity to have sex while not monitoring every conversation my spouse is involved with.
Conversely, if someone flirts with my spouse, and my spouse doesn't engage, I might not take notice, or if I do, I might not find it important enough to report back. There's a broad space of possibilities. "Offered," in this context, is pretty broad.
Famous people have such "offers" all the time. I was once mildly famous, and in one place I visited, there was a person who clearly expressed interest, who looked perhaps half my age. I signed an autograph and quickly moved on. This is the first time I even thought to even relay the story.
> Not just because friends and colleagues would want to defend someone they are involved with...
... you have paranoid delusions. That's just not how the world works.
> If Minsky had rebuked Epstein
I have no evidence this did not happen, and neither do you. Most times, such rebukes are private. I also have no idea what, if anything, Minsky knew.
> rejected any association
> I'm not advocating for Minsky to be condemned as a terrible person. I'm just pointing out that he, as an example of wide-spread societal behavior, did not do the right thing.
You have no idea what he did. You picked a random person, and decided to vilify him in your brain, based on fragmentary quotes.
I'll also mention: Good people associate with bad people. Christians often cite how Jesus associated with tax collectors, sex workers, and other sinners. As a tactic, isolation does not work. Overcoming racism means associating with racists. Overcoming sexism means associating with sexists. "Talking with" is not the same as "supporting," and if we didn't have cancel culture or "cut diplomatic relations" as a punishment, the world would be a much better place.
You need to stop basing your argument on a smear campaigns and obvious red herrings.
Thank you for backing down.
An apology would be warranted.
> It is materially different. Either it did not happen as the widow claimed, or it did and it was declined.
The material fact was that sex did not happen, regardless of whether the argument was that people saw Minsky decline or the argument was that the widow was with him the whole time and saw it did not happen. The two are not contradictory.
> If you have non-public information, then feel free to share, otherwise there is nothing left to say.
I do. I never met Minsky, which was odd given we revolve in similar circles. I did and still do know a lot of people who do know Minsky, whom I trust. The accounts -- which for me are second-hand and for you are now third-hand, were that the widow wasn't the only witness that sex did not happen, and that people who know Minsky well found the concept of him cheating on his wife inconceivable. That's just not his personality.
That's good enough for me to conclude that Minsky did not have sex with Virginia. It's not hard proof, but it seems extremely unlikely.
However, even if it did seem plausible (let's omit the insider information from a stranger on the internet), I would STILL not indict Minsky without clear evidence. Treating people as guilty without proof is kind of evil, in my opinion. It's two kind of evil:
- It's reprehensible when innocent people are treated as guilty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_ratio
- It makes smear campaigns work. The reason corporations, the CIA, and other organizations are able to run character assassination on activists and whistleblowers is precisely people like you, willing to run with allegations.
As a footnote: If you actually cared about pedophiles, corruption, and sex, why haven't you followed up on the obvious? The logical question -- if you bothered with logical inference over outrage -- would be why there were multiple, non-public witnesses who weren't mentioned in the MIT Transparency Report. Epstein got around a lot in MIT circles.
> Minsky's participation
Did not happen.
The polite thing would be to apologize.
And this:
> if you look at the context of what he said
Would require you to share context. People have a history of sharing an article about an article about an article about what Stallman said.
When I go back to the source, he does have an extreme case of foot-in-mouth, but I have seen nothing from primary sources which would justify the smear campaign. Usually, the "context" is a conversation about terrorists or whatnot, Stallman making some academic point, and the "context" labelling him as "with the terrorists." Stallman:
- Can't read the room
- Doesn't follow the context
- Speaks precisely
Let me be blunt: You're smearing good people who worked to improve the world. That's not cool. It's also something which does broader harm than you might imagine. It means all but the most thick-skinned won't want to get into positions like Minsky or Stallman.
The Minsky situation was MIT looking for a fall-man.
The Stallman one dates back to Microsoft's engineered astroturf campaign, back when they were anti-FLOSS.
Why the fuck would I ever want to pick a fight with a corporation doing something nasty, if the result would be people like you calling me a pedophile?
The reason I give people a very large amount of benefit-of-the-doubt is because I've seen the effect these engineered smear campaigns have on individuals. I've also seen the amount of crazy that happens when one is famous. If a million people know who you are, and 0.01% do something crazy -- obsessive false accusations, bomb threats, or whatnot -- that's still a hundred people. Britney Spears or Zuckerberg will have security teams, legal teams, and PR teams to handle that. People who, like Stallman, are fundamentally doing something for the public benefit have the same pressure from crazies, astroturf, and whatnot, but without the ability to afford a defence.
> Virginia Giuffre said that she had sex with Minsky when she was 17 and he was 73.
Was not a lie?
Also: Yes, I do have sources which are not publicly available, but the difference between "declined" versus "it couldn't have happened because she said she was always with him" is within the spectrum of ambiguity of real-world human speech and memory. It is not materially different. The material point is there are multiple witnesses (at least the widow, in public sources) that say he did not have sex.
If you want proof of MIT folks covering up:
a) Read the MIT Transparency Report
b) Look at photos on archive.org from people who went to Epstein island and events whom MIT did not reveal. All this was public at the time.
Compare. But MIT also has travel records, so most of the people in the Epstein files, MIT knew about and chose to omit.
For reference, an original source is something like:
https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20...
The so-called "article" is a one-line comment on a post in what looks like a 2006-era Twitter-style feed. I think one would see a similar amount of crazy from virtually anyone posting this much, without a filter.
Read it.
Do you believe Stallman is a pedophile on the basis of this comment?
I do not.
I've seen similar comments in academic texts, in the context of cultures where this happened and was acceptable (e.g. Greek pederasty in ancient Athens). From what I know of Stallman's communication style, I read this comment in a similar, if much less informed, light. He's making an incorrect but academic point, poorly.
E.g. the reaction to free software in the nineties was communist/anti-capitalist/idealist/unrealistic.
It was an extreme fringe movement.
Now, Linux powers every Android phone, most servers, most routers, and is probably more broadly adopted than all other operating systems, combined.
That it seems normal speaks volumes to his accomplishments.
I can write "EA-3167" and "pedophilia" in an article 100 times. Congratulations! You're now associated with pedophilia. That's a classic smear campaign.
Unless someone can cite something Stallman specifically said or did which implicates him, I'm passing on this as part of a smear campaign. I will not accept:
- An article reporting on an article reporting on a misquote of Stallman
- Subtext you read into something he wrote (his flaw is he doesn't get subtext to what he writes)
There's infinite communications from him. He has no filter. Go on. Find something. If you can't, accept you're wrong. The alternative is that I'll accept you're being malicious.