Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | yreg's commentslogin

These things were obviously always concerning but I feel the situation has taken on an entirely different dimension now that they could feasibly use whisper + LLM to actually review _all_ the communication. That's crazy.

Darkness travels even faster than light on Discworld, because it has to be fast enough to get out of the way when light arrives.

The sunrise flows like a golden river onto the landscape. If I remember correctly.

Also one of my favorites is discworld scientist experimenting with ftl communication through succession by “modulating” a king above a pit of sharks an measuring his son at the other end of the world for “kingness”


It is a bit less strict than you think. It's not just about the police giving the tourists some leeway.

- Alcohol is fully legal for non-muslims, even if they have residency (or in rare cases citizenship).

- Unmarried cohabitation is fully legal, unmarried sex is mostly legal. It can only be prosecuted when a partner is cheating and their wife/husband files a complaint. Or when a minor is involved and their legal guardian files a complaint.

On the other hand homosexual and transgender expressions are still illegal, like you say.


So this is explicitly built for partially-contained agents who have the normal protocols/methods blocked, right?

Wasn't holocaust caused by words?

Thank you so much for what you do.

> Of course the alternative is what the parent comment suggests ("probably just need a good base domain for game wikis") - but you have to get THAT domain out of Google jail first.

So why not get such domain, wait out until it is let out of Google Jail and then put all the wikis on subdomains?

I imagine you would quickly gain trust and people would immediately recognize the links and know that this is the place to go. As opposed to the current state where the wikis have separate domain names and for each game we need to learn which one is the "good one".

Second question: Any thoughts on liberating non-gaming wikis from fandom, such as TV show wikis?


Re the first question, you have to park at least one wiki on said domain for around a year, during which Google will refuse to show other page other than the main page. That's just not really a realistic option is it.

Per the article they don't.

> There’s a bit of light at the end of the tunnel, though - based on our experiments so far, it seems like once we establish these new wikis fairly well on Google, it should be safe to move them off weirdgloop.org back to whatever the appropriate name was, while keeping the existing Google juice that the subdomain picked up. I’m hoping that in 6 months or so we can just 301 redirect overwatch.weirdgloop.org to overwatch.wiki, use Google’s change of address tool, and put these wikis to where they should have been in the first place.


I mean, at that point isn't it better for the community to just leave the wiki on overwatch.wiki instead of overwatch.<generic domain>?

For the hardcore Overwatch community perhaps, but not for the general gaming community, especially if WG is about to grow further and host more and more wikis.

For people who regularly get into new games its much easier to learn just one easily distinguished domain with the high quality wikis.

overwatch.weirdgloop.org works better than overwatch.wiki in this sense, apart from the complaints about the odd name up in the comment chain.


Have you actually hear him talk about it? It is very far from rambling and he will be the first to tell you that he is not sure he is right.

We need physicists to come up with and develop novel ideas to consider no matter how many of them might be entirely wrong.


There's a difference between making and testing hypotheses, and desperately scrambling to find proof to justify a conclusion made in advance in the face of mounting evidence that said conclusion is false, which is what Penrose is doing regarding quantum consciousness.

Grossly simplifying: he is a dualist, he wants to reconcile his belief in the soul and his physicist's materialist view of biology, so he resorts to putting the source of consciousness in quantum phenomenas, and seeks to prove that they occur in the brain. I disagree that there's an immaterial soul, I disagree that it puppets the material universe through quantum phenomenas, and I disagree that there are important quantum phenomenas in the brain. Most physicists are with me on these.


>source of consciousness in quantum phenomenas, and seeks to prove that they occur in the brain

I think he should look for consciousness as the source of quantum phenomena. Not the other way around. But as he is a physicist, all nails looks like a physics problem.

It is the same situation where people might have struggled to explain the heavenly observation using an earth centric model. Once you invert the wrong premise that you consider as fundamental, the answer, previously so elusive, becomes trivial...


I'm with you regarding opinion on consciousness, but do you think it would be 'better' if there were no dualists and no dualist essays and ideas?

Because I hardly think so.

This is not like alternative medicine where there is harm for people who don't follow the mainstream. And I stress again that Penrose (in the interviews I saw) doesn't actually claim that he absolutely has to be right.


> do you think it would be 'better' if there were no dualists and no dualist essays and ideas?

No of course not, people should be free to discuss and believe in dualism. What I find regrettable, is how often Penrose's name is invoked in an appeal to authority, as if his past (and very valuable) contributions to physics were enough to make him right on everything, including this subject.

Ultimately, I believe dualism is wrong, and I believe I have good reasons to think so. My previous comment was simply my attempt at deconstructing Penrose's argument, participating in the ever-ongoing popular debate.


> My previous comment was simply my attempt at deconstructing Penrose's argument, participating in the ever-ongoing popular debate.

That may be so, but just the mention of Penrose's name in the context of something else caused you to start a whole subthread that had nothing to do with the subject.


It was not "just the mention of Penrose's name", it was this comment specifically:

> "Any explanation by Roger Penrose is bound to be good"

Is something wrong with my original comment?


Fair enough, I can see that.

If mind was random, people would miscalculate 1+1 with 50% probability. So earth might be flat, but it's unlikely.

> If mind was random, people would miscalculate 1+1 with 50% probability.

That does not follow at all.


Miscalculation doesn't follow from randomness?

If you run an LLM (with temp >0) and use a true random generator for seeds, it will still tell you 1+1 is 2.

You mean mind is deterministic and cancels all noise? Then what quantum physics would do there?

You don't need to cancel all the noise to solve 1+1 correctly. The model in the example is non-deterministic.

I don't know Penrose's view deeply enough to defend it further (view which I for the record do not share).


He's just rambling.

Where did the 50% came from?!

Many phenomenon emerge from randomness with very high probability just because the law of large number.


It's statistics that emerges with very high probability due to the law of large numbers. If you calculate 1+1=2 with 100% probability, then quantum physics doesn't meaningfully participate in your reasoning, not more than brownian motion.

Don't plenty of android devices have barometers? I expect Google being Google and recording all that data unless you opt out.

Would that be practical for weather forecasting or not really?


A barometer will give you surface pressure, but that's a field that tends to vary relatively slowly over the surface of the Earth. The calibrated weather stations that exist at every airstrip do a reasonable job of providing these conditions over land, and the residual of "pressure from phones" probably won't help all that much.

The data that would be most valuable to initial conditions is upper-atmosphere winds -- this is the kind of data given by weather balloons. In clear air there's no great way to measure this from either the ground or from space.

One important supplemental data source here are aviation reports, from planes flying at altitude and particularly trans-oceanic routes. When air traffic was largely curtailed during the early phase of the Covid pandemic, weather forecasting suffered a bit for the lack of data (see eg https://www.ecmwf.int/en/about/media-centre/news/2020/drop-a...).


> Would that be practical for weather forecasting or not really?

What are the conditions at 5000 feet, 10000, etc? What is the location of the jet stream and its strength? The reduced number of (e.g.) weather balloons is hindering forecasts (per the links).


It is odd but also fascinating. If he likes it that way then all the power to him. He's not exactly trying to convince others to do the same.

> If he likes it that way then all the power to him.

Except the literal power, apparently!


Were people not happy about WSL?

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: