andrewflnr

6 ms·

1.
by andrewflnr 3d ago
It's not plain to me where you're going. But the answer about the core of a planet engulfed by the sun is that it vaporizes eventually , just not right away.
2.
by andrewflnr 3d ago
I don't fully follow (not being an astrophysicist), but it seems like the depth of the metallic material within the star matters a lot for their model. A planet can "bury" it (their word) a lot deeper than small rocks by phys
3.
by andrewflnr 3d ago
Exactly a Doppler shift.
4.
by andrewflnr 3d ago
As long as we're nitpicking, casualties include injuries as well as deaths.
5.
by andrewflnr 3d ago
I think you misunderstood Hawking. "Now" in the relativistic sense is not the same as our past light cone. Reference frames for simultaneity are defined by relative motion. Galaxies without too big a redshift are close enough to m
6.
by andrewflnr 3d ago
Everyone thinks they know what "real AI" means, but they usually mean some mishmash of "general intelligence", "human-like intelligence", and "deserves moral rights", none of which firmly imply each o
7.
by andrewflnr 4d ago
https://xkcd.com/285/
8.
by andrewflnr 4d ago
AI has included everything from neural nets to video game NPCs for as long as I'm aware of. What else is the broad umbrella term? We have to have one. And for anything else, you need to be specific about its properties anyway. In parti
9.
by andrewflnr 4d ago
Just another person who thinks AI===AGI.
10.
by andrewflnr 4d ago
I was already pretty clear that the job of producing value was separate from the part of the job that I enjoyed. What makes me sad is the part that I enjoyed evaporating entirely.
11.
by andrewflnr 4d ago
Yeah, basically any human group has some shared social context. Most cults and fascists probably eat together sometimes too, but that doesn't make it a red flag.
12.
by andrewflnr 5d ago
It's paperclip maximization either way.
13.
by andrewflnr 8d ago
So you have to look up the non-emergency number while someone may or may not be getting in position to do you physical harm. Even if we hate Flock as a company, that individual very much knows we hate Flock, and has reason to fear for his
14.
by andrewflnr 8d ago
There's no reason the Catholics couldn't have invented it independently. I think that's just the human instinctive approach to religion. Lots of little per-concept semi-spiritual entities, sacred and profane objects, etc.
15.
by andrewflnr 9d ago
> What about rocks in the surface of the water?. Some volcanic rocks can float. This is... not something you lay plans on. Even on Earth, these rocks are formed at surface pressure, just barely float, and don't float for long (I&#x2
16.
by andrewflnr 9d ago
To be clear, I am in favor of giving books time to grab you. Long-term, this will give you more and deeper enjoyment. Some genuinely life-changing books really do need that time to get you up to speed. They're worth it.
17.
by andrewflnr 9d ago
No kidding. Clearly there's some redundancy, or however you want to frame it, in real-world released models. That still means your argument for why they can never be interpretable is based an incorrect premise.
18.
by andrewflnr 10d ago
You kind of are claiming they're minimal, though. Because if they're not, your statement that "if you found any patterns in there, you could exploit the regularity..." implies nothing. Yeah, the patterns are there, and
19.
by andrewflnr 10d ago
I think it's more ignorance, only sometimes willful, than actually enjoying human suffering. Then again, voluntary human suffering is part of the story that sells art, so there might be some of that in there too.
20.
by andrewflnr 10d ago
If you want to tell reading-skeptical kids about "the volta", please don't phrase it as "the volta". Just say that a lot of good novels need you to read them for a bit to see what's going on, and then it will g
21.
by andrewflnr 11d ago
This is a more honest and realistic take than most on the thread. Note that either way it's the provenance behind the gem that you find attractive, much more than any instantaneous quality of it like chemistry, lack/presence of de
22.
by andrewflnr 11d ago
This is the censorship part. > I used AI to convert scans of the book pages into text. But partway through, the Claude session halted and displayed a message in red type: >> Request was blocked >> API Error: 400 Output bl
23.
by andrewflnr 11d ago
Coordination cost maybe. If you're transferring A -> B and C <- D, but A and C or B and D don't know each other or even dislike each other, it's going to be hard to even get them to talk about the fungibility of the act
24.
by andrewflnr 12d ago
Re quality of the resulting movie, it's probably best to think of graphics as reducing one class of possible bugs or quality-killers. It obviously can't do anything for writing, editing, directing, human actors' performances
25.
by andrewflnr 12d ago
You kind of had it at first. > At most, all you can say is that if you select a universe at random, it's likely to be a high-black-hole universe. Yeah, that's sufficient when it's caused by their heritable properties. Th
26.
by andrewflnr 13d ago
Really? I described in detail the exact kind of selection pressure evolution requires.
27.
by andrewflnr 14d ago
Evolution doesn't specifically require competition, just for replication rate to vary depending on some property of the thing replicating. Competition for finite resources is only one way to create that variation.
28.
by andrewflnr 14d ago
I think it's worth noting that the universe-selection theory outlined in this article is a lot more conservative than the full Blowtorch Theory about cosmic structure formation.
29.
by andrewflnr 14d ago
I may have a bit of a sarcastic tone, but I'm nevertheless interpreting your words as well as I can. > If only the DNC was interested in promoting candidates that work for the people and aren't just interested in lip service wh
30.
by andrewflnr 15d ago
I know what a hypothetical is. An utterly unrealistic hypothetical is more distracting than grounding. I don't think we're exactly talking past each other. I think the problem is that you've misdiagnosed the problem as, like

More ›