jjk166

4 ms·

1.
by jjk166 8d ago
The issue is the mechanism of "lowering" it. You're not giving it more slack.
2.
by jjk166 8d ago
If you have an ~~anvil hanging over your head~~ ton of compressed rock under you, the potential energy that would kill you already exists. Slowly lowering the ~~anvil~~ potential energy of the rock makes sense. Damaging the ~~rope holding t
3.
by jjk166 8d ago
If you have an anvil hanging over your head, the potential energy that would kill you already exists. Slowly lowering the anvil makes sense. Damaging the rope holding the anvil doesn't.
4.
by jjk166 10d ago
It can take years for the damn thing to fail even after the key support stops entirely. In that time you and your colleagues will suffer, and the people responsible will jump ship long before the full impact has been felt, learning nothing
5.
by jjk166 11d ago
But for a lot of companies, all the connections in the world won't mean shit if someone else can offer a lower cost with a better lead time.
6.
by jjk166 11d ago
The difference is when you imagine things normally you are aware that you are imagining them and you have full control over them. I can picture an elephant in the room with me, I can change its size or color, I can give it a top hat, and cr
7.
by jjk166 12d ago
I say "doing a lot of heavy lifting" all the time. I have heard people use load-bearing though it's less common. Other than habit I don't see any real advantage to the version I use over load-bearing.
8.
by jjk166 12d ago
Admittedly, peer review originally referred to the fact that the journal being published was read ("reviewed") by your peers, and thus there would be the opportunity for them to provide rebuttals after publication. The process t
9.
by jjk166 12d ago
No it isn't. > The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon Adding a guidance system to a rocket does not mean it is explicitly designed as a ground-to-groun
10.
by jjk166 13d ago
No it isn't. Guidance systems are perfectly legal. The FAA has some common sense restrictions like "you can't fly it at an airplane" or "you can't fly it over a crowd" or "you can't attach an exp
11.
by jjk166 13d ago
Did those dumb bombs tossed out of biplanes lack software because the software was difficult to write or because there was no hardware in the world capable of running software? Given that missile guidance systems predate the very notion of
12.
by jjk166 13d ago
Well if we found current or fossil life with a common ancestor on other bodies it would certainly demonstrate that it arrived via debris; whereas if we find life with no common ancestor or find no evidence of life at all that would reject t
13.
by jjk166 16d ago
That's not what KYC being illegal means. It means it should be illegal to impose KYC laws. Just like state religion or warrantless searches are illegal.
14.
by jjk166 18d ago
> I think the intellectual position "it should be illegal for institutions transmitting money between two parties to identify either of those parties" might require some kind of logical argument behind it. This is both a straw
15.
by jjk166 18d ago
Did you know they can just beat you with a wrench anyways? The "maybe if we do what they say and don't make a fuss they'll be appeased and stop" strategy fails when matched up against those who will never be appeased and
16.
by jjk166 21d ago
"If men learn this [writing], it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of
17.
by jjk166 23d ago
> All the emphasis these companies place on technological progress is a distraction from dealing with the climate crisis, said Gregers Andersen, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Southern Denmark who has written a forthcomin
18.
by jjk166 23d ago
A user's hardware represents the worst case scenario they want to be able to handle, not their preferred nominal settings. Most people aren't changing their screen refresh rate when they switch between playing a game and reading w
19.
by jjk166 24d ago
Yeah, just like no one would ever buy a lead-acid battery. I don't think many people are concerned about their batteries being safe for ingestion.
20.
by jjk166 24d ago
The purpose of a teacher is not to be a challenging conversational partner.
21.
by jjk166 24d ago
If the kids don't want to learn, and the schools aren't looking for anything beyond their ability to produce an answer, that's not an AI problem.
22.
by jjk166 24d ago
> No manager/CEO would say “hey, due to AI my workers get the same work done in 30h for which they needed 40h before - let’s cut their working hours down to 30h with same salary”. Why not? The moment anyone offers this option, they
23.
by jjk166 24d ago
Productivity per capita has already 5Xed since the 40 hour workweek was implemented. The resources required to comfortably raise a family in a suburban home can be generated with only a few hundred hours of labor per year. Everything they h
24.
by jjk166 24d ago
> There's an assumption buried in Chesterton's Fence: somebody built the fence. It didn't grow there by itself, so whoever put it there presumably had a reason. Code has traditionally worked much the same way. Even if the
25.
by jjk166 24d ago
> "A computer" in the first statement is IMO obviously intended in the common usage sense of the term, i.e. the brain is not a desktop computer No one has ever thought that a brain is a desktop computer, and that is not the com
26.
by jjk166 1mo ago
> Nobody is banning legal immigration. It's being restricted. No it has been banned. There is no legal way to do it. Even if it is a temporary ban, it is a ban. If you support indefinitely pausing legal immigration, you are anti-leg
27.
by jjk166 1mo ago
It most certainly is hypocritical. You can not be simultaneously pro-legal immigration and support banning legal immigration. If you support banning legal immigration, you are by definition anti-legal immigration. > Being anti-illegal im
28.
by jjk166 1mo ago
> it is hard to hide the scale of building and power usage from international watchdogs. Because nothing consumes tons of energy and doesn't output tons of product to sell except for nuclear material refinement for weapons. Until da
29.
by jjk166 1mo ago
If the bad actor has centrifuge technology and access to low enriched uranium, they are already weeks away from achieving weapons grade material. If a country with Iran's enrichment capabilities had a sufficient LEU stockpile swapped f
30.
by jjk166 1mo ago
> What has changed here to make them competitive again? Nothing. This is a company that specializes in making medical isotopes, which is something Calutrons are good for - you need high levels of enrichment in a single step, you don&#x27

More ›