All of kurokikaze's Comments + Replies

If your true goal is "everyone lives", then 50% blue cutoff is waaay more achievable than 100% red one.

True, but kind of misleading.  Neither 50.1% blue nor 100% red are achievable (in my estimation, in any sizable population of real humans), but missing that goal by a bit is a LOT better for red than for blue.  

Google have processing power backed by trained engineers, which might be important too. Google can do things like "Folding@home" on their own.

And then there's three guys spending over 500 hours to recreate the first two minutes and twenty seconds of Super Mario Land using more than 18 million Minecraft blocks.

I suspect it can be done programmatically, by wiring MC server to emulator, in less than 50 hours.

Pfft. Even magenta doesn't fit in the light spectrum. Are you terrified yet? :)

Good point. No wonder it has such a negative association.

No, I'm not talking about the basis to criticize technology, but more about of actual target of criticism. Disclaimer: there sure are technologies that can do more harm than good. Here I will concentrate on communications, as you picked it as being one of the top problematic technologies.

For me, it all boils down to constructive side of criticism: should we change the technologies of the way we use them? Because I think in first case, new technologies will be used with the same drawbacks for humans as old ones. In the second case, successful usage pattern... (read more)

Maybe I misinterpreted your first comment. I agree almost completely with this one, especially the part

Sorry, but isn't this the criticism of inappropriate use of technologies rather than technologies itself?

What would be the point of criticizing technology on the basis of its appropriate use? Technologies do not exist in a vacuum, and even if they did, there'd be nobody around to use them. Thus restricting to only the "technology itself" is bound to miss the point of the criticism of technology. When considering the potential effects of future technology we need to take into account how the technologies will be used, and it is certainly reasonable to believe that some technologies have been and will be used to cause more harm than good. That a critical argument takes into account the relevant features of the society that uses the technology is not a flaw of the argument, but rather the opposite.

It will not return any specific person even if you speak Google: a person -"Genghis Khan"

I googled 'a specific person -"genghis khan"' and got Bob Dylan in the top result. If you want specificity, include "specific".
Then again, if Google were optimized to provide useful answers to queries like these, it probably wouldn't be very useful.

Calculated from gravitational force.

I think vegetarian-carnivore metaphor here doesn't help at all :)

I found it helpful. But I'm an omnivore so I (mistakenly) think that I don't have a dog in that fight.
This is quite possible, but there is some irony here - you have misrepresented the analogy by describing a three category grouping system by naming two of its categories, implying it is about opposites! I think that people do this too often in general and that it is implicated in this debate's confused character. Hence, the analogy with more than a dichotomy of oppositional groups!

I mean it could not be visible from a game log (for complex games). We will see the combination of pieces when game ends (ending condition), but it can be not enough.

I don't think we're talking about the same things here. A decision tree is an optimal path through all possible decision in a game, not just the history of any given game. "Victory conditions" in the context I'm using are the conditions that need to be met in order for the game to end, not simply the state of play at the point when any given game ends.

Well, even if we have conditions to end game we still don't know if player's goal is to end the game (poker) or to avoid ending it for as long as possible (Jenga). We can try to deduce it empirically (if it's possible to end game on first turn effortlesly, then goal is to keep going), but I'm not sure if it applies to all games.

If ending the game quickly or slowly is part of the objective, in what way is it not included in the victory conditions?

I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here: it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility... for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could and before you even knew what you had you patented it and packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now - you're selling it.

Dr. Ian Malcolm, "Jurassic Park"

It's simple. I'll show on one example.

I was interested in Sphinx search server, so I've decided to do its protocol implementation in javascript (for node.js).

I've created project on github and got remote URL. Then I've created folder on local disk and started coding. Reverse-enginereed PHP Sphinx connector, written some JS code, commited it to local Git repo. Next step: add remote URL to git repo. After this I can push my changes to Github with "git push remote master", where "master" is the branch name. And voila, project is on the Git... (read more)

Awesome, thanks :)

1, 2, 3 - You can get into opensource social coding like Github or Bitbucket. This will improve your coding skills and make you some coder friends to help with tough questions (worked for me). Time constraint is harder to deal with.

Would you mind expanding on this a little? These websites look like version control / project management systems, how does one jump into the "public" projects you're talking about?

Hm, I don't want to distract even more people from their duties, but this may work. I'll see what I can do.

Still, more ideas are welcome.

It's entirely possible you have at least one co-worker with the same issue, who is also interested in fixing it. You could thus offer a mutual benefit :)
You could set a timer/scrip to remind you to look over your own shoulder.

I want to lower my "off-topic" Internet usage when I'm on work.

What do I have now:

  1. No penalties for surfing Reddit if the work is done on time
  2. RescueTime for counting hours I spend on work and hours I spend on various lolcats (right now my efficiency is 0.5, which mean ~ 1 hour of reddit per 1.6 hours of work)

Why I want to do that? To have more time for my own projects and work.

What's keeping me from doing that:

  1. I'm afraid to burn out doing only the programming-related stuff.
  2. Some sites are just addictive (yes, Reddit, I'm looking at you).
  3. I'm slightly tired from two years long project (I'm going to vacation in less than 1 month).
I know someone IRL who was having that problem. They modified their computer so that they were simply unable to access certain sites. I believe it involved having the browser block certain IP addresses but I can't really remember. It was possible to undo this but it took far to much work for a stalling activity.
Ask someone to look over your shoulder at random times but maybe once per 10min on average.

Sadly, the site seems to be down.

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

In case of C64 emulator, the game is represented, your experience is reproduced. As for second, I think it's purely subjectional as it depends on what level of output you expect from simulation. For gamer the emulator game can be "reproduction", for engineer that seek some details on inner workings of Commodore it can be just an approximation of "real thing" and of no use for him.

Okay, here's my answers. Please take note that full answers will be too big, so expect some vagueness:

1) B 3) Big topic For me, It can use result of "computation". 4) Invoking memory or associations? Mostly no. 5) Hard to say yet. I'll take a guess that it's mostly functions, with maybe some parts where steps really matter. 6) I think it's possible. 7) I guess so. 8) They have something in common, but I think it depends on your definition of "conscious". They are most certainly not self-conscious, though.

Maybe the most productive variant is just to ignore the offender/offence?

On a slightly unrelated note, one psychologist I know has demonstrated me that sometimes it's more useful to agree with offence on the spot, whatever it is, and just continue with conversation. So I think in some situations this too may be a viable option.

Okay, I had pondered this question for some time and the preliminary conclusions are strange. Either "existance" is physically meaningless or it should be split to at least three terms with slightly different meanings. Or "existance" is purely subjective things and we can't meaningfully argue about "existance" of things that are causally disconnected from us.

Oh, I got what you mean by "Tegmark IV" here from your another answer. Then it's more complicated and depends on our definition of "existance" (there can be many, I presume).

I think gravity is "real" for any bodies that it affects. For the person running the simulator it's "real" too, but in some other sense — it's not affecting the person physically but it produces some information for him that wouldn't be there without the simulator (so we cannot say they're entirely causally disconnected). All this requires further thinking :)

Also, english is not my main language so there can be some misunderstanding on my part :)

Okay, I had pondered this question for some time and the preliminary conclusions are strange. Either "existance" is physically meaningless or it should be split to at least three terms with slightly different meanings. Or "existance" is purely subjective things and we can't meaningfully argue about "existance" of things that are causally disconnected from us.

I don't get the question, frankly. Simulation, in my opinion, is not a single formula but the means of knowing the state of system at particular time. In this case, we need an "apparatus", even if it's only a piece of paper, crayon and our own brain. It will be a very simple simulator, yes.

Basically I'm asking: is gravity "real for all bodies inside the system" or "real for all bodies inside the simulator"? If the former, then we have Tegmark IV. If ONLY the latter, then you're saying that a system requires a means to be made known by someone outside the system, in order to have gravity "be real" for it. That's not substrate independence; we're no longer talking about its point of view, as it only becomes "real" when it informs our point of view, and not before.

From inside the simulation, the simulation "reasoning" about phenomenon cannot be distincted from actually causing this phenomenon. From my point of view, gravity inside two-body simulator is real for all bodies inside the simulator.

If you separate "reasoning" from "happening" only because you are able to tell one from another from your point of view, why don't we say that all working of our world can be "reasoning" instead of real phenomena if there are entities that can separate its "simulated working" from their "real" universe?

For a two body simulator we can just use the Newtonian equation for F = G m1m2 / (r^2), right? You aren't claiming we need any sort of computing apparatus to make gravity real for "all bodies inside the simulator"?

Thanks for these links (also, fellow DF player here :)).

Well, he will be intruder (in my opinion). Like, "unwanted child" kind of indtruder. It consumes your time, money, and you can't just throw it away.

Sounds like it pretty much sucks to be me in that scenario.

There's one more aspect to that. You are "morally ok" to turn off only your own computer. Messing with other people stuff is "morally bad". And I don't think you can "own" self-aware machine more that you can "own" a human being.

So, as long as we're going down this road: it seems to follow from this that if someone installs, without my permission, a self-aware algorithm on my computer, the computer is no longer mine... it is, rather, an uninvited intruder in my home, consuming my electricity and doing data transfer across my network connection. So I've just had my computer stolen, and I'm having my electricity and bandwidth stolen on an ongoing basis. And maybe it's playing Jonathan Coulton really loudly on its speakers or otherwise being obnoxious. But I can't kick it out without unplugging it, and unplugging it is "morally bad." So, OK... is it "morally OK" to put it on a battery backup and wheel it to the curb, then let events take their natural course? I'm still out a computer that way, but at least I get my network back. (Or is it "morally bad" to take away the computer's network access, also?) More generally, what recourse do I have? Is it "morally OK" for me to move to a different house and shut off the utilities? Am I obligated, on your view, to support this computer to the day I die?

I just made my first donation yesterday. Talk about timing :)