Ferk

And please, get all countries to actually start properly accepting ISO 8601 format for dates as a mandatory universal standard…

Obligatory reference: https://xkcd.com/1179/

I think it was Mandrake Linux for me.
It no longer exists though. …I guess I’m old.

someone painting him as a morally righteous

The first thing @seSvxR3ull7LHaEZFIjM said was: “Assange is a bit of a scumbag” …

The closest thing to “righteousness” said was: “his efforts for freedom of information should not land him in US torture prisons like many others.”

Which, being true, it’s absolutely not challenged or contradicted by anything you said in response.

Note that “freedom of information” is totally compatible with “picking and choosing” the manner in which you exercise that freedom. In fact, I’d argue that the freedom of “picking and choosing” what’s published without external pressure is fundamentally what the freedom of press is about.

Assagne (like any other journalist) should have the freedom of “picking and choosing” what facts he wants to expose, as long as they are not fabrications. If they are shown to be intentionally fabricated then that’s when things would be different… but if he’s just informing, a mouthpiece, even if the information is filtered based on an editorial, then that’s just journalism. That’s a freedom that should be protected, instead of attacking him because he’s publishing (or not publishing) this or that.

But C syntax clearly hints to int *p being the expected format.

Otherwise you would only need to do int* p, q to declare two pointers… however doing that only declares p as pointer. You are actually required to type * in front of each variable name intended to hold a pointer in the declaration: int *p, *q;

Yes… how is “reducing exclamation marks” a good thing when you do it by adding a ' (not to be confused with , ´,‘or’` …which are all different characters).

Does this rely on the assumption that everyone uses a US QWERTY keyboard where ! happens to be slightly more inconvenient than typing '?

Yes, the way his hand is positioned, it would not have worked if they had wanted to make it hold the wooden stick. They’d have needed to edit the hand too much and it would have likely been noticeable / even weirder.

Probably they decided: f*ck it, let them grab it however they want. Maybe it’ll even become a thing.

And it looks like it worked, since we are talking about it and spreading the ad. Smart advertising, imho.

I mean, it would technically be possible to build a computer out or organic and biological live tissue. It wouldn’t be very practical but it’s technically possible.

I just don’t think it would be very reasonable to consider that the one thing making it intelligent is that they are made of proteins and living cells instead of silicates and diodes. I’d argue that such a claim would, on itself, be a strong claim too.

Note that “real world truth” is something you can never accurately map with just your senses.

No model of the “real world” is accurate, and not everyone maps the “real world truth” they personally experience through their senses in the same way… or even necessarily in a way that’s really truly “correct”, since the senses are often deceiving.

A person who is blind experiences the “real world truth” by mapping it to a different set of models than someone who has additional visual information to mix into that model.

However, that doesn’t mean that the blind person can “never understand” the “real world truth” …it just means that the extent at which they experience that truth is different, since they need to rely in other senses to form their model.

Of course, the more different the senses and experiences between two intelligent beings, the harder it will be for them to communicate with each other in a way they can truly empathize. At the end of the day, when we say we “understand” someone, what we mean is that we have found enough evidence to hold the belief that some aspects of our models are similar enough. It doesn’t really mean that what we modeled is truly accurate, nor that if we didn’t understand them then our model (or theirs) is somehow invalid. Sometimes people are both technically referring to the same “real world truth”, they simply don’t understand each other and focus on different aspects/perceptions of it.

Someone (or something) not understanding an idea you hold doesn’t mean that they (or you) aren’t intelligent. It just means you both perceive/model reality in different ways.

Step 1. Analize what’s the possible consequence / event that you find undesirable

Step 2. Determine whether there’s something you can do to prevent it: if there is, go to step 3, if there’s not go to step 4

Step 3. Do it, do that thing that you believe can prevent it. And after you’ve done it, go back to step 2 and reevaluate if there’s something else.

Step 4. Since there’s nothing else you can do to prevent it, accept the fact that this consequence might happen and adapt to it… you already did all you could do given the circumstances and your current state/ability, you can’t do anything about it anymore, so why worry? just accept it. Try and make it less “undesirable”.

Step 5. Wait. Entertain yourself some other way… you did your part.

Step 6. Either the event doesn’t happen, or it happens but you already prepared to accept the consequences.

Step 7. Analyze what (not) happened and how it happened (or didn’t). Try to understand it better so in the future you can better predict / adapt under similar circumstances, and go back to step 1.

The AI can only judge by having a neural network trained on what’s a human and what’s an AI (and btw, for that training you need humans)… which means you can break that test by making an AI that also accesses that same neural network and uses it to self-test the responses before outputting them, providing only exactly the kind of output the other AI would give a “human” verdict on.

So I don’t think that would work very well, it’ll just be a cat & mouse race between the AIs.

It could still be bayesian reasoning, but a much more complex one, underlaid by a lot of preconceptions (which could have also been acquired in a bayesian way).

Even if the result is random, a highly pre-trained bayessian network that has the experience of seeing many puzzles or tests before that do follow non-random patterns might expect a non-random pattern… so those people might have learned to not expect true randomness, since most things aren’t random.

Yes… the chinese experiment misses the point, because the Turing test was never really about figuring out whether or not an algorithm has “conscience” (what is that even?)… but about determining if an algorithm can exhibit inteligent behavior that’s equivalent/indistinguishable from a human.

The chinese room is useless because the only thing it proves is that people don’t know what conscience is, or what are they even are trying to test.

A test that didn’t require a human could theoretically be tested automatically by the machine preemptively and solved easily.

I can’t imagine how would you test this in a way that wouldn’t require a human.

They did post it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjOMPka5WFo

Sure, but if the hate was focused on the platform and not on its leadership I doubt there’d be as many reddit users willing to protest.

Anyone who truly cares about the openness of the platform would have already been using a more open alternative by now.

Yes, I think it’s an issue from kglitch.social, when seeing your comment (or other mentions) from there it does not show it as a link:

https://kglitch.social/m/RedditMigration@kbin.social/t/11190/I-just-wanted-to-leave-this-here#entry-comment-78785

It also depends about what specific topic we are talking about.

In many places in Europe, being a social democrat when it comes to economy (like Bernie) might be considered pretty moderate. But then certain attitudes about non-binary pronouns or supporting special considerations for specific groups of people, are seen closer to “far left”.

You don’t see the amount of virtue signaling in Europe that you see in USA media productions, for example.

Note that the subreddit will not disappear. All this means is that the actual Minecraft devs will no longer be using it for official announcements / collect feedback (that’s why the “thanks for the feedback”). Instead now they ask people to use the existing feedback channels.

It might affect the IPO if this happens more generally or causes a trend, but I don’t think it’s such a big deal. It’s not like they are sunsetting the subreddit. And even if they did, the reddit admins can simply mark the channel as abandoned and allow for new mods to take it over. So the community there will most likely continue as it was. I bet most people didn’t even know the official devs were there.

They will stick to their already existing proprietary feedback channels.
And I doubt the subreddit will disappear, it’s just that it will no longer be “official”. I don’t see them stating anywhere that they will set it to private or something… and even if they did, the reddit admins can simply mark the channel as abandoned and allow for new mods to take it over.

To be honest, I feel this is simply the most convenient strategic move for Mojang. As a company I would have done the same, they no longer have to bring employees to support a third party platform and at the same time they get to promote their own. And instead of getting backlash, they’ll look like the good guys for doing so.

But it being MIT also makes it easy for the company to just work internally by themselves to make improvements for their version of the software without paying anything at all to the original dev. They can even release a better product than the original dev using his own changes and unfairly compete against them without sharing anything back.

Whereas, if the license is GPL, they would need to hire the original dev and colaborate with him fairly if they ever want to make a proprietary version of the software (which can be done, as long as the dev is the sole copyright holder).