estearum

29 ms·

751.
by estearum 4mo ago
Why would new astronomy infra pay for the Starlink's negative externalities? Yeah it turns out that "divvy up finite resource" is actually just an intrinsically nightmarish problem when it's something no one intrinsicall
752.
by estearum 4mo ago
Easy: Starlink should internalize its negative externalities. As a first pass, we can estimate how much astronomy infrastructure ($$$) is negatively impacted ($$$) by Starlink and pass those costs to them.
753.
by estearum 4mo ago
Again, I didn't say anything about "objectively real" anything. Your knowledge of consciousness existing within you is inherently subjective. And yet it's the truest thing any one of us can possibly know (per your
754.
by estearum 4mo ago
Good luck drawing a line between life/living systems and otherwise. The panpsychist answer is (unfortunately) the only one that even remotely passes the sniff test.
755.
by estearum 4mo ago
I didn’t argue “I think therefore I am.” I argued “experience therefore consciousness.” No “I” nor “think” nor “am” To use your language, perceiving something does in fact necessarily imply there is perception happening. You’re jumping to D
756.
by estearum 4mo ago
Well consciousness has the "advantage"/curse of the fact that we all know it exists. We just can't prove it to each other.
757.
by estearum 4mo ago
The definition of consciousness is quite clear IMO: "it is something to be that thing." What's not clear is what causes it and how to evaluate whether someone/something else "has" it.
758.
by estearum 4mo ago
The entire field of modern pharmaceuticals is still not too far from what you're describing. Lots of drugs people use every day (with established clinical effect) we still don't know how they actually work.
759.
by estearum 4mo ago
GP was complaining about Claude's "lack of impressiveness" and "crassness." I said that's silly. You said "code quality matters". I said "it's not clear that lack of impressiveness and crass
760.
by estearum 4mo ago
It's not at all obvious what you're talking about because the words you're saying make literally no sense. > The question is why is there no insurance that a person can by that will cover any FDA approved vaccine injury fo
761.
by estearum 4mo ago
Ah, you are really confused. First of all, insurers do sell insurance against vaccine injuries. And pharma companies buy that insurance. Secondly, the companies that insure pharma companies are not the same companies (nor types of pol
762.
by estearum 4mo ago
You are aware that you can just pay more money and get a higher quality house and higher quality shoes, right? Costs of those things have gone down over time. The high end still exists, you just don't actually care about quality as m
763.
by estearum 4mo ago
Right, and to the extent that your coding practices contribute to reliability and speed of development, they are "of quality." Now do the same exercise for "impressiveness" and "crassness." Here, I'll do i
764.
by estearum 4mo ago
I'm not sure who you saw arguing for inferior materials and techniques, but let me know when you find them. What you saw in this thread was someone arguing against the dimensions of "impressiveness" and "crassness"
765.
by estearum 4mo ago
Hang on now. GP didn't say "I care about quality" and I didn't say caring about quality is wrong. GP said Claude's code "doesn't impress" them and that it's "crass." Do you think a vali
766.
by estearum 4mo ago
No the materials and techniques matter a lot. This is why we need to build houses with sticks and jute cord, just like we always have. It's vital also that we paint our special symbols above the door to ward off the spirits. It's
767.
by estearum 4mo ago
He he... it is very funny that you just assume this has anything to do with trust. It has to do with incentives and capability. Please describe the specific threat vector you're concerned about. Is it a rogue auditor changing some numb
768.
by estearum 4mo ago
"Code quality" encompasses a lot of dimensions, one of which is impressing your colleagues, and many of which there's virtually no reason to care about now.
769.
by estearum 4mo ago
> That which I do code, I am still coding by hand, though I am dealing with other people's Claude output and I am really unimpressed by it. It's often rather crass. Unfortunately the point of code is rarely to impress people (c
770.
by estearum 4mo ago
> I don't see why we are downplaying it by saying it's worse elsewhere This would suggest it is not worse elsewhere? Or are you saying it is worse elsewhere, but it being worse elsewhere is not a reason to downplay it here? W
771.
by estearum 4mo ago
Again: This reveals an ignorance about how trials actually work. You should be more curious. Clinical trials don't happen "behind closed doors and come out with only a result." Clinical trials are run independently across hun
772.
by estearum 4mo ago
Imagine thinking that placebo-controlled, double-blinded randomized clinical trials say "it works because I said so." Surprised you don't fall out of your own shoes in your upside-down world.
773.
by estearum 4mo ago
“Government must inject information directly into my brain at precisely my literacy and curiosity and intelligence level. Failure to do so is THEIR fault, and not an indictment of my literacy, curiosity, or intelligence.”
774.
by estearum 4mo ago
As we all know, when people on the Internet are calling for things, a reasonable expectation is for them to fully specify the end-to-end implementation plan. And if they don't provide, then you can definitely just presume the absolute
775.
by estearum 4mo ago
They literally do not do that though. They publish information at every level of specificity and detail! Anyone who is actually curious and not just doing this lazy meta-commentary game could find all the information they need at any le
776.
by estearum 4mo ago
It's even harder when he's completely uncurious about how the world actually works ;)
777.
by estearum 4mo ago
Yes, it's a sentiment generated by this "I need information injected directly into my brain attitude, and failure to achieve that is very possibly maybe kinda hinting at something nefarious!" > The pandemic had several hig
778.
by estearum 4mo ago
Okay so you're upset that people propagate the easy-to-understand information much more thoroughly than the super technical hard-to-understand information?
779.
by estearum 4mo ago
It is the top Google result for "pfizer COVID vaccine study CDC" And yes, ACIP regularly puts out commercials and flyers. They are not 50 minutes nor 230 pages long, but they contain all the relevant info someone needs at a glance
780.
by estearum 4mo ago
> I care but I don’t have the requisite education to understand what I’m reading. I need it explained by someone who has taken up that specialization. They did explain it! Here's what it sounded like: "We have thoroughly resear

More ›