Sit down dude. You think you are standing up for rights, but are making a case for weaker security by trusting, i.e. that MS and Apple won't backdoor you in an instant if they must. You are literally, actually, a shill, especially with this pompous presentation.
None of your list is better than nothing, if the authoritarians want your data. Except, maybe, Tor, and only if people contribute to running exit nodes.
If it isn't end-to-end, and only you know and control your keys, you are already doomed. In other words, you cannot trust any service with your keys. That includes https and signal.
> If it isn't end-to-end, and only you know and control your keys, you are already doomed. In other words, you cannot trust any service with your keys. That includes https and signal.
Shows just how valuable neo-yuppies are to local economies and politics. Go home, you actually make it worse for everybody else. Plus, your vote matters in any other state.
Travel is so valuable to perspective, too. I know some people on the woke spectrum who would be a lot less miserable if they traveled even to other U.S. states, but the up-front cost is a barrier. Share your miles, make the world a better place!
The U.S. should invest in sending youth abroad (not excluding domestically). The U.S. should also invest in sending entrepreneurs abroad. Thanks for coming to my two-cent talk.
Forget AI democritization, GPT-3 is AI demoguerization.
GPT-3 is singular; it is one model, one dataset, one training. Yet it will be the only one that will exist for quite some time (or by far the most available), and now it will underwrite productization and malfeasance, a la mode pay to play.
For example, I recently read a paper supposedly written by a Chinese dissident virologist, which report was disseminated by a group with questionable membership. Most of the jargon in the report going over my head, I had to wonder if the otherwise convincing verbiage wasn't the work of GPT-3.
IMHO, GoL is too simple (as Einstein might have said). The machinery GoL can produce is "curious", but overly complicated. IOW, GoL is not complex enough to produce results that can be reasoned about usefully/meaningfully.
They used CNNs in this experiment to learn how far a NN could predict GoL into the future. It can't be done, for GoL is not finite.
Garbage in, garbage out. If you admit dummies, they are not
going to become a genius. The bigger issue for all of us is, now we are not supporting the students who could really move the needle. So the needle doesn't move.
Mozilla sucks at software. They are prescriptive, and always changing. They practice the worst of open source (give today, take tomorrow, user no choice, auto-updates), and they cannot keep up with enterprise in their own domain.
In this context it is, it's defined as the bi-directional line between game state transitions, and can be measured quantitively like any other spatial dimension.
I'm talking specifically about time in the context of this game, which is what this thread is about, not time in the universe.
Those lines are an aspect of the dimensions of the board, not an addition to them. The measure of time does not make it a dimension (we can measure time in the universe too).
Adding another dimension to an n dimensional array -- [0,0,0] becoming [0,0,0,0], the extra zero is another dimension.
It doesn't matter what the numbers represent, x,y,z + time, or whatever - so we can describe the position of a particle using 4 numbers, x, y, z spatial co-ordinates and time. The same with this game of chess, board coordinates and time to describe the positions of the pieces.
Is that right? I've always read "dimension" used in this way in arxiv papers on math and comp sci, time is another dimension when it is used to describe internal state.
You read the papers correctly, bc those are abstract dimensions, neither time nor space nor precise facial features. Adding another element to an array is changing it's arity, as arguments to a function (which nobody confuses as a function's dimensions).
The chessboard case is an example of mixing disparate, concrete properties, and calling them all dimensions. But that is exactly the error in saying that time is the 4th dimension: mixing the concrete concept of dimension with the abstract one. Blame physicists, for they seem to really think time is our forth dimension, ergo fundamental, whereas time is an emergent property not of spatial dimensions alone, but motion in that space.
Here is an example of purely abstract dimensions. When the researchers at OpenAI want to add the position of words in a sentence, they literally add time, in form of co/sines, to the data. They don't "add" as-in append/concat another dimension to the data, the add as-in sum the existing data with the co/sines, changing the data. They literally merge time into the dimensions of the input. Before and after are temporal, for clocks and words in a string (ie their relative position gives meaningful relativity to the concepts the words represent, or we are lost), but really ALL time is a position WITHIN the dimensions, and the changing of time is the change of position. Ergo time is not additional dimension to the space.
We would not experience time if there was no motion, and objects moving faster experience faster time relative to a slow moving object, as Einstein proved.
> We would not experience time if there was no motion
> whereas time is an emergent property not of spatial dimensions alone, but motion in that space.
Is that proven true generally? I have often really wondered this myself, but Ive not had anyone to ask for a fundamental proof of this. I appreciate your thorough answers could you please explain or point me in the right direction?
I am using motion quite generally, to include the motion of particles, heat, etc. I don't know if the emergent property stuff is proven or discussed much, but I think the field is coming around to it, if for no other reason than they are running out of ideas.
Physics has been working in the top-down direction. That is not how you find emergent properties, it is an attempt to explain things from the properties they seem to possess.
For instance, the relatively gigantic boson is somehow "sub-atomic", to particle physicists. Whereas I think it that particles emerge from the breakdown of the bosonic field, and when we smash together the particles which reveal the boson, we are briefly seeing what happens when we have put them back together. See my comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21039542
A very good primer on this is "Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy" by Manuel DeLanda.
None of your list is better than nothing, if the authoritarians want your data. Except, maybe, Tor, and only if people contribute to running exit nodes.
If it isn't end-to-end, and only you know and control your keys, you are already doomed. In other words, you cannot trust any service with your keys. That includes https and signal.