drdeca

88 ms·

1. 1021.▲
   by drdeca 5y ago

   Cool! I didn’t know that. Thanks!
2. 1022.▲
   by drdeca 5y ago

   I’m pretty sure it isn’t meant as a legal argument. What entitles me to control of my computer? “My computer is mine, and you cannot have it.”. That being said, I’m somewhat more open to the validity of restrictions for how to interact with
3. 1023.▲
   by drdeca 5y ago

   Depends how you define “touch” doesn’t it? It’s not like the atoms have sharp boundaries which fall short of coinciding with the boundaries of other atoms, what should it even mean to say that they do or don’t touch? I don’t know much of
4. 1024.▲
   by drdeca 5y ago

   I don't follow? They are saying that in order to run a business in which one sells goods or services for cryptocoins, that in order to pay for one's business costs, one must spend fiat, and that therefore, someone selling goods fo
5. 1025.▲
   by drdeca 5y ago

   fiat here means (roughly) government issued, I think
6. 1026.▲
   by drdeca 5y ago

   At least with classical information, I'm this is impossible. Classical information can be described with a sequence of bits. If you have a long enough shared random sequence of bits, you can always use that as a one-time-pad, and encry
7. 1027.▲
   by drdeca 5y ago

   if magic books were real, then the way we would have to treat books would be much different.
8. 1028.▲
   by drdeca 5y ago

   I think that the recent mathematical+philosophical(?) work by “johnswentworth” on AlignmentForum/LessWrong on Abstraction as “Information at a Distance” is an intriguing approach towards how it could be that abstractions which are “nat
9. 1029.▲
   by drdeca 5y ago

   Using 0 as false and 1 as true has the benefit that + (mod 2) becomes xor and * becomes and. (or, if instead of mod 2, you use min(1,a + b) to keep things in the set, then + becomes or ) To use 0 as true and 1 as false, you don't get n
10. 1030.▲
    by drdeca 5y ago

    I'm skeptical that future technologies will have much use for neutrinos specifically. Facts discovered via the study of neutrinos, that seems quite plausible, but I doubt there will ever be much use for neutrinos directly.
11. 1031.▲
    by drdeca 5y ago

    nitpick : posing a threat and making a threat are different things, and I meant to be talking about making a threat, as the thing that seemed borderline as to whether it is considered "violence". I don't think whether someone
12. 1032.▲
    by drdeca 5y ago

    This response was initially confusing to me, but thinking about it, I think it led me to realize that complaints about things like this are, essentially, an attempt at coordination among consumers, in order to collectively get a better deal
13. 1033.▲
    by drdeca 5y ago

    I think I would consider whatever process they used to get hypothetical-me into their basement to be violence, but not their keeping the basement door locked or whatever is used to keep hypothetical-me in. (Possibly if I was actually in thi
14. 1034.▲
    by drdeca 5y ago

    I assume that by "violence" we mean, like, physical violence, things like beating, choking, tazing, tear gas, shooting, etc., things by which one is exerting power over another through physical exertion, in a way that can directly
15. 1035.▲
    by drdeca 5y ago

    Do you mean "like what most cops do" rather that "most of what cops do"? Because weighting by time, the latter seems implausible to me.
16. 1036.▲
    by drdeca 5y ago

    Ok, but like, would their overall reputation be higher if they were to directly put some proportion of their inventory up for auction (like, each item individually, not like one auction for a bundle of a very large number of GPUs) instead?
17. 1037.▲
    by drdeca 5y ago

    It seems to me like most of the (alleged) benefits of scalpers would be equally well achieved by selling (some fraction of) the items in auctions, instead of just picking a price. However, my impression is that consumers would view this in
18. 1038.▲
    by drdeca 5y ago

    I don’t think claims 1 or 4 are justified (where claim 4 is interpreted in the relevant sense), and I’m not sure quite what you mean by claim 2.
19. 1039.▲
    by drdeca 5y ago

    Cool! btw, it looks like there is an error with the cert for ironbci.com ? Edit: uh, I guess my phone just didn’t like that it was over http, nevermind
20. 1040.▲
    by drdeca 5y ago

    I don’t think we can confidently say that space is discrete at the Planck scale.
21. 1041.▲
    by drdeca 5y ago

    I agree that we can’t reject the hypothesis that reality is continuous (and, even if spacetime turns out to be discrete, it seems hard to imagine that the amplitudes of the wavefunction(s) have finitely many possible complex values, though
22. 1042.▲
    by drdeca 5y ago

    While of course it is just one of many (alongside e.g. “just use a public key”(or hash of one or something. I don’t know the details), and “just use a github username”, when looking at the example resolver, and trying to read the docs, my i
23. 1043.▲
    by drdeca 5y ago

    Thanks, that term came up with good search results. I appreciate it.
24. 1044.▲
    by drdeca 5y ago

    “Subtraction [as defined from pairs of natural numbers to natural numbers] sometimes produces undefined quantities” is wrong (or at best phrased in a sloppy way which you in one part interpret in a way that would make it wrong). Instead, fo
25. 1045.▲
    by drdeca 5y ago

    What do you call “an AST plus the additional information (such as whitespace info) needed to recover the original text the AST was parsed from” (if that has a name)? I think I saw it mentioned somewhere as having a name.
26. 1046.▲
    by drdeca 5y ago

    Calling this a "contradiction" is, imo, unjustified. It is not the accountant who I am calling (more) confused (though if the accountant believes what they are doing to be "impossible" they are still somewhat confused)
27. 1047.▲
    by drdeca 5y ago

    Yes
28. 1048.▲
    by drdeca 5y ago

    If it lets me avoid a circular definition, I’m willing to tolerate a bit of ugliness in my definitions (at least, provided that it can be shown to be equivalent (under assumptions of some results that can also be proven under the awkward fo
29. 1049.▲
    by drdeca 5y ago

    But what reason is there to cultivate this happiness-independent-of-circumstances if not in order to be happy? But if I do not wish to be happy, then I have no reason to cultivate this kind of happiness. It is like you are trying to tell me
30. 1050.▲
    by drdeca 5y ago

    Why should I want to be happy? A major purpose of happiness is a difficult-to-fake signal to others of an outcome being good for me (rather, of it seeming to me to be good/desirable). Happiness is what happens when I get what I want. M