4 ms·

i just meant that no future population will see each and every foible we exhibit perfectly, because that's like hitting a trillion heads in a row. effectively i

i just meant that no future population will see each and every foible we exhibit perfectly, because that's like hitting a trillion heads in a row. effectively impossible. but they could perhaps hit a hundred. in any case, the hard part is not finding candidates but culling them down, analogous to the halting problem (or the bullshit asymmetry problem). is it an infinite calculation? probably. and this thread has dropped pretty far into the archives, so i think it might be time to retire it. perhaps we can continue in a future thread.

mistermann 4y ago
> i just meant that no future population will see each and every foible we exhibit perfectly, because that's like hitting a trillion heads in a row. effectively impossible. but they could perhaps hit a hundred. My motto is: aim for adequacy, not perfection. > in any case, the hard part is not finding candidates but culling them down, analogous to the halting problem (or the bullshit asymmetry problem). is it an infinite calculation? probably. Maybe. But also: maybe not! > and this thread has dropped pretty far into the archives, so i think it might be time to retire it. perhaps we can continue in a future thread. Haha, not a bad idea...I enjoyed the conversation, a breath of fresh air for HN.