Veedrac

6 ms·

31.
by Veedrac 7mo ago
If you don't like the word 'actuality', I can rephrase. Many worlds is just the claim that physical reality materially evolves in correspondence with the Schrödinger equation. If you want to quibble over what it means for som
32.
by Veedrac 7mo ago
Many worlds is just the claim that the Schrödinger equation holds in actuality. I don't think QD makes decisions 'uniquely'. Take this quote, > The step from the epistemic (“I have evidence of |π17〉”.) to ontic (“The syste
33.
by Veedrac 7mo ago
My confusion is that this is just Many Worlds / the Schrödinger equation, and Quantum Darwinism doesn't seem to add anything that wasn't already obvious by inspection. But after reading more, I think that's kind of the p
34.
by Veedrac 7mo ago
Maybe I am just out of my depth, but I don't understand what problem quantum Darwinism is solving. The Schrödinger equation already explains why observers seem to agree: the ones that don't are separated from each other. This arti
35.
by Veedrac 8mo ago
This is missing the primary reasons insider trading is bad, which are that it's an information theft incentive against employers, and worse, that it's a sabotage incentive.
36.
by Veedrac 8mo ago
> From what I've seen, models have hit a plateau where code generation is pretty good... > But it's not improving like it did the past few years. As opposed to... what? The past few months? Has AI progress so broken our mind
37.
by Veedrac 8mo ago
This rule isn't internalizing an externality.
38.
by Veedrac 9mo ago
Have you been around a Waymo as a pedestrian? Used one recently? I have never felt as safe around any car as I do around Waymos. It can feel principled to take the critical stance, but ultimately the authorities are going to have complete v
39.
by Veedrac 9mo ago
> the companies owning and operating those AIs would go out of business as no one would be able to afford the products made by the AIs What do you think money is...? Money is a way to indirectly trade labour and goods. If a job is auto
40.
by Veedrac 9mo ago
> The volume of space from the ground to 50,000 feet is about 200x smaller than the volume from the Karman line to the top of LEO alone (~2,000 km). Volume is the natural way to assume space scales, but it's incorrect. Two planes ca
41.
by Veedrac 9mo ago
The paper says we are 2.8 days away from a collision. It doesn't say we're '2 days away from kessler'. In fact, the paper explicitly warns against your interpretation. > We emphasize that the CRASH Clock does not me
42.
by Veedrac 10mo ago
The stock market learns from experience, because it's made of people who learn from experience. Imagine an investor's experience with TSLA. From the beginning, they're flooded with news reports about 'fundamentals'
43.
by Veedrac 10mo ago
Wikipedia has a section on this that I thought was presented fine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindley%27s_paradox#The_lack_o... Indeed, Bayesian approaches need effort to correct bad priors, and indeed the original
44.
by Veedrac 10mo ago
...do you not see the parallel in the words you just wrote? That AI's value will continue increasing even as the buzzwords fall out of the public consciousness, just as crypto continued to gain value even as the buzzwords fell out of t
45.
by Veedrac 10mo ago
> This isn't crypto. Bitcoin is at $92k.
46.
by Veedrac 11mo ago
It's hard for me to respect the intrinsic superiority of a format whose main value-add is exclusivity, rather than fair market competition based on merits. If theatres pivoted to competing first on format rather than exclusive access t
47.
by Veedrac 11mo ago
Falcon Heavy is a huge outlier, and has never actually demonstrated the capability to lift close to its nameplate capacity to LEO. Falcon 9 is already volume constrained to LEO outside of Starlink or Dragon launches, and Starlink is packed
48.
by Veedrac 11mo ago
Tesla got rid of radar because of sensor fusion, and particularly for reasons that wouldn't apply to high resolution radar. Sensor fusion with a high resolution source like LiDAR isn't particularly tricky.
49.
by Veedrac 11mo ago
Lori Garver, former NASA Deputy Administrator, has interesting additional context on the matter. https://x.com/Lori_Garver/status/1985147604121092154
50.
by Veedrac 1y ago
Au contraire, the space program stalled because pouring national wealth into gigantic space projects was _too_ sustainable. The idea that NASA has had a lack of funding is a myth. The problem has long been them spending it ineffectively.
51.
by Veedrac 1y ago
This is as would be expected if it were real. Advantage isn't a black and white thing, because the comparison starts against 'any task done the best we know how to do using the most resources we happen to be willing to throw at it
52.
by Veedrac 1y ago
> Let’s start with an example: (2#x)#1,x#0 is code from the official q phrasebook for constructing an x-by-x identity matrix. Is this... just to be clever? Why not (!x)=/:!x aka. the identity matrix is defined as having one
53.
by Veedrac 1y ago
Correction: There was flap burn through, just not all the way to the back. https://bsky.app/profile/dutchspace.bsky.social/post/3m37ofb... The damage I'd noticed before today was all correlated with wher
54.
by Veedrac 1y ago
Y'all wouldn't believe this but 10 years ago AGI was a hundred years away.
55.
by Veedrac 1y ago
> Apollo for comparison took about 8 years from announcement to moon landing. Space shuttle took about 9 years from approval to first flight. Starship has been in development now about 9 years. This comparison is very unfair. Nine years
56.
by Veedrac 1y ago
The hard part of reuse is getting the thing back in flying shape. The booster part is actually just demonstrated, and this flight got us a fully-intact upper stage back, sans a few tiles lost to the wind and the landing being simulated. I c
57.
by Veedrac 1y ago
Very clean flight, almost all the way through, despite the intentional missing tiles and new flight pattern. No flap burn through, no issues with simulated Starlink deploy, I don't think they even lost any engines. They're clearly
58.
by Veedrac 1y ago
This is quite loosely stated. It's true Boston Dynamics is an old company and that they've had some very cool demos. It's not at all true that they've been showing qualitatively similar things for 20 years. The oldest vi
59.
by Veedrac 1y ago
There are a few exacerbating factors. The first is that IIUC, CFCs release chlorine atoms which catalyze ozone, whereas aluminium oxide catalyzes the creation of chlorine atoms from chlorine reservoirs, which then go on to catalyze ozone. I
60.
by Veedrac 1y ago
This is correct from the perspective of direct health hazards, but there are still plausible risks. We know from history you don't need a lot of mass to cause global problems, if the material is catalytic.

More ›