• 1 Post
  • 111 Comments
Joined duela 2 urte
cake
Cake day: urr. 02, 2020

help-circle
rss

sorry late reply, got sucked into work and thing. finally back.

yeah i agree with you here. all i meant re. responsibility was along the lines of, when people ask “is it ok to mistreat animals for <whatever> gain?”.

my response would be, no, not only is it wrong because its plain wrong, but also because we have responsibility.


That is good information that it has been ratified.

To put it in ethical terms, it may be good to give a very wide berth on where the definition of sentience might be. (ignoring or including that the capability for suffering may not be identical to sentience. but agreed its a good starting point to establish a bounds.)

To put it in intellectual or scientific terms, no numeric value can be correctly assigned to a real world quantity without an associated error. The maximum radius of that error is roughly what I would ascribe to the “wide berth” mentioned above.

The limits of our perception meaning there’s a chance we may be wrong, and in this context i’d rather be wrong for the right reasons - so to speak.

There’s alot of discussion around humans being more valuable because of our elevated perception and sentience. I would put it the other way: with the increased sentience comes a duty of care, that is where our responsibilities to other species comes from imo.

I know I didn’t say anything to disagree with either of you, just continuing the enjoyable discussion.


now we know why psychedelics are generally illegal

while alcohol/tobacco/xanax etc are legal


well said.

re. ‘capability to suffer’: this seems (imo) to have been a stumbling point or crack which has occasionally been widened to facilitate destructive behaviour.

how to determine this capability to suffer? for every obvious example there will be some cruel person making a devils argument for why we can’t be 100% certain (and therefore “all bets are off”).

i think its good to give a very wide berth on all species with mobility. not foolproof (eg. plenty of plants fall under this category), but its a good start imo



must be an election year


yeah, i agree its fun to question these things really.

also, i suppose we could say, there’s ALOT more we can observe which is unexplained about this, than there is eg. an invisible friend following you (as far as I’m aware hehe).

but yes, i agree there’s currently no clear evidence any of it exists.

basically i got passingly interested in this topic a while back (‘life’, not woo products lol), as far as i got was essentially we don’t know. so when people say eg. “x doesn’t exist”. but in fact we just don’t know.

here’s about as far as i got on the topic before moving onto other things. some random “interesting” bits in no specific order:

This had also been found from work done 18 years earlier in the Miller-Urey experiment which if I recall used arc discharge rather than a stricly thermal regime [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment]. But essentially you have this gas mixture which simulates prebiotic earth atmosphere, and subject it to various conditions for example simulating lightening, and it can produce amino acids. And we can see the absorption lines of those gases all around the universe. Pretty crazy and interesting.

  • Seeds are actually already living, and living in dormant “suspended animation”. Apparently they very very slowly use up a store of energy and possibly interact with other systems while dormant, and may actually live many thousands of years. The oldest reported successful germination i’m aware of was a 2,000 year old date seed [Sallon et al, 2005]. There was some they thought might be 10,000 years old but the sample turned out to be contaminated. [http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=4405].

is there completely zero evidence?

something happens which turns a bunch of molecules and amino acids into ‘life’. we still don’t know what that thing is.

there is evidence of that process occurring in nearly every mm^2 on the planet, yet noone has been able to reproduce it.

is it simple random chemical chance? perhaps, but there’s not exactly clear evidence of that either.

[not defending snakeoil sales people btw, they are scum]


Extremely true.

Or if people must post a video, they need to have a reasonable length text to explain it, so everyone can participate without having to watch the video.


Can we say with certainty that it doesn’t exist? Perhaps it does exist.

But shitty scammer companies like this wouldn’t know how to find it.

And anyone who claims to have it is probably full of bs. Does that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist though?


or at least, thats the cover they’re using to conceal their interests.

pretty difficult to believe a company with their resources (let alone history) cares so deeply about that issue, yet falls so unbelievably short of a correct approach.

all the while perfectly aligning with their interests, and the push to decouple opensource from stepping on commercial toes.


yep, its ridiculous. and its only going to get worse


there is some/broad consensus that we can do better than iptables these days

oh yeah i have no doubt about that. just wondering what a healthy timeline looks like for the transition.

i don’t follow it especially closely, but had the impression bpf is still in the maturing phase regarding vulnerabilities. hopefully that is at least in part a sign it is being actively inspected and hardened with this purpose in mind - and i’m sure iptables still has many lurking vulns.

in summary, agree some form of transition is likely inevitable. wondering what the timeline will look like.



eBPF is powerful for sure, is it yet mature enough to replace iptables?


that is a good point, and thanks for the recommendation.

though its also good to be mindful of privacy respecting re. search terms vs privacy respecting re. data leaks. and some timing leaks are independent of the plaintext payload, ie. easily grabbed in transit.


Cool, thanks for the new details.

Just my 2c, be wary of search bar suggestions if it may leak data to 3rd party, including accidental typings etc, timing info etc


Wow, great job. Very much like your work and your guide.

Quick note, what do you mean by?

enabled search engine suggestions

I tried to check with your user-overrides.js but the file is gone?


thanks for the good info.

could you please provide a brief overview of the core concepts you have implemented in your user-overrides.js?


Should downvotes require a summary textfield?
across a variety of modern up/down vote based platforms, some make it a personal mission to avoid downvoting (the only real exceptions when someone is being utterly objectionable, ie. ridiculously racist/sexist etc or blatant spamming ^(1)^ in general, it is almost always better to have a respectful discussion than mindlessly downvoting and moving on. if two parties can meet for respectful discussion the outcome is almost always superior to the text-book divisiveness of a downvote war etc ^(2)^. in a great many cases people usually find they don't disagree as much as previously thought, have their mind opened to a valuable new perspective, or at worst accept to disagree respectfully. definitely a better outcome. yes it is time consuming, but don't we all generally want quality over quantity? ^(2)^ the original idea of a self-moderating community through up/down votes is a good idea, yet appears to have been hijacked by the modern social-media-type weaponised web, which is being turned against humanity to divide and polarize us against eachother. and is particularly suspectible to bot manipulation. ^(1)^ which can have eg. their own flags
fedilink