happythomist

10 ms·

1.
by happythomist 9d ago
> And most hilarious of all about this, the reviled national energy program (NEP) -- you know, the one that 0% of Albertans understand but they're sure it was to screw them -- was the federal government proposing a national pipeline
2.
by happythomist 5y ago
The judiciary and executive are not on an equal footing. The judiciary is the weakest branch of government, and the legislature the strongest. These kinds of abuses must be addressed by Congress, not the courts.
3.
by happythomist 6y ago
This is exactly right. So does "all our concepts are complicated grab bags of 'ontic' and 'epistemic'".
4.
by happythomist 6y ago
I am using mine as a DHCP, DNS, and VPN server. Something I've noticed is that the SD card corrupts easily, though that may be simply because I'm using a phone charger as the power supply. I discovered that although the Model B do
5.
by happythomist 6y ago
I don't agree, but I've reached my personal limit for philosophical discussion for the day, so I'll let you have the last word. Thanks for the discussion! :)
6.
by happythomist 6y ago
> If I create a robot with an optical camera that detects if there is a large object near itself and uses an arm to open a door if so, the system works (or doesn't work) regardless of any meaning that is ascribed to its computations
7.
by happythomist 6y ago
> The subjects experience sensations that are inseparable from their neurons firing. What does "inseparable" mean? That the sensation occurs at the same time that the neurons fire? That may be true, but it doesn't make the
8.
by happythomist 6y ago
> If we could understand human thought at a similar level, we MIGHT find out that "the feeling of red" is not fundamentally different than "the understanding that 1 + 1 = 2", and we could come up with quantifications
9.
by happythomist 6y ago
> Perhaps if we were able to understand the brain's inner workings, we could see that 'the experience of red' is precisely 'these 3 neurons firing ever 0.0112 seconds at an intensity of X while receiving 0.001 microgr
10.
by happythomist 6y ago
> If we perfectly understood the human brain, the sensation of red would be defined as a sequence of neurons that need to be turned on and off at the right time. A sequence of neurons firing is not equivalent to the sensation of red. It
11.
by happythomist 6y ago
Why should the complexity matter, so long as the computation is recognizable as such?
12.
by happythomist 6y ago
The issue is not whether we can pragmatically communicate the concept of "red" by piggybacking on some (presumed) common experience, but whether that experience of redness itself is information. It is obviously not, and I do not u
13.
by happythomist 6y ago
How do you go about quantifying the sensory experience of red, then? You can observe that red light has a wavelength of 620 to 750 nm, or that we've assigned it the RGB colour code of #FF0000, but neither fact actually captures or expl
14.
by happythomist 6y ago
I think you're missing the central point, which is that computation is observer relative. Anything can be interpreted as a computational process. Searle: "Thus for example the wall behind my back is right now implementing the Word
15.
by happythomist 6y ago
I don't think you can say that life is built on computational processes unless you use a definition of "computation" that is so vague and all-encompassing that it becomes effectively meaningless. The Wikipedia definition of &
16.
by happythomist 6y ago
> It's not even clear exactly how our brains work so its hard to imagine that they couldn't be implemented with a sufficiently powerful computer... Not commenting on what OP said, but I don't think this is correct. Even in
17.
by happythomist 6y ago
That's basically my thinking as well, for what it's worth.
18.
by happythomist 6y ago
> Not only is this scenario 1000x worse for freedom than the very very worst that Amazon could do, it's also far more likely at the moment. Politically motivated refusal of service by Amazon or other Silicon Valley firms is at least
19.
by happythomist 6y ago
> Should newspapers be liable (that is, able to be sued) for a letter to the editor they publish? Why shouldn't they? If the letter is libelous, then they're responsible for distributing it to a larger audience.
20.
by happythomist 6y ago
One solution might be for the Supreme Court to acknowledge that APIs are copyrightable, but that re-implementations are always fair use.
21.
by happythomist 6y ago
I believe it's similar to "constexpr" in C++ -- it means those functions can now be evaluated at compile time.
22.
by happythomist 6y ago
What's so surprising about that? It's not so much a "rule" as a statement of political fact. Now that Supreme Court has become a de facto legislative body, no nominee has a chance of getting through when the presidency a
23.
by happythomist 6y ago
> That helps make my point, though, that the legal framework for handling encryption already exists and just needs to be clarified a little bit, instead of making new, far-reaching laws with serious implications on the landscape. I think
24.
by happythomist 6y ago
Did some more research on this; see this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23647018
25.
by happythomist 6y ago
> The latter is protected by the Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination, in the same way as sharing knowledge verbally. ... If the latter, however, then there is no legal way for law enforcement to force you to decrypt the devi
26.
by happythomist 6y ago
I think there might be a circuit split on this issue, but IMO merely divulging a combination or encryption key is not "testimonial" (and therefore not a 5th Amendment violation) except insofar as it admits knowledge of the combina
27.
by happythomist 6y ago
I don't see where the author makes that claim. Mandatory decryption of HTTPS traffic is not a ban on HTTPS.
28.
by happythomist 6y ago
> Do you think, in that scenario, that safe manufacturers should be required to make a master key and distribute it to law enforcement? I'm not sure, to be honest, but I think it's certainly a reasonable position to take. >
29.
by happythomist 6y ago
Contrary to what some people are implying, support for mandatory decryption is not evidence of technological illiteracy. From the perspective of these lawmakers, encrypted storage is like a safe. You have the right to store records in a saf
30.
by happythomist 6y ago
A service provider like Google or Apple (a) provides a single point of access to many devices, and (b) is very likely to comply with law enforcement requests if compliance is legally required.

More ›