By this reading if you can argue if you’re not a stupid person ripping it down actually is permitted.

Alphabet shares record? That’s nice, I wonder if its 45 or 78RPM.

The degree to which share price discovery is fundamentally rooted in optimistic speculation, as opposed to any actual evidence… at some point talking about “value” becomes a little weird. “Overvalued by 15%” reads like a chemist doing a titration.

People were more interested in selling than buying yesterday.

There is a lot to unpack there, but it sheds a lot of light onto the popularity (and depending who you ask, the subversion) of the work.

I’ll start by saying that people joke about how school doesn’t prepare them for the real world, where was “doing my taxes” class, amirite?

Fundamentally I think that an even more critical and teachable skill missing is how to be empathetic. Not like “I have the capacity to feel bad for people”, but a more general form of “I can abandon my own preconceptions to allow myself to accurately view the world through their eyes”.

That relative illiteracy leads to exactly the longing you express: how to understand what are theople are going to do, and why.

This couples with another favorite observation: when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem is going to look like a nail.

What you’ve described, roughly, is the concept of a breadth-first search. It’s a general workable algorithm to establish the type of thing you want to do.

It’s inefficient, and especially in the context of a human brain with finite working memory, still prone to suboptimal results. Still better than nothing, but suboptimal given the constraints.

So it’s a solution. And, if you didn’t have one before, the temptation is to treat that like the hammer.

Because it “works” without a moral evaluation, one might conclude that the moral evaluation isn’t important.

And then it’s a classic case of the inevitabilities of staring too long into the abyss

That’s a fascinating observation about the synopsis, seems to lend credence to my musing that Wikipedia editors may drop or include key points which betray their own reading. Probably not a malicious act, but evidence that varied weighting of events can result in divergent interpretations.

That being said, a framwork for evaluating actions in the absence of moral evaluation is, in my opinion, fundamentally flawed. The explicit absence speaks just as loudly as any prescription. And I do think Picard would have my back on that one.

Which, I stress isn’t a condemnation of the source itself: it’s a warning that such a source can be hijacked for nefarious purposes; intentionally or otherwise.

Just the Wikipedia one. I absolutely admit that not having read the source material (and that the synopsis is crowd sourced and easily could be written through the lens of someone seeing what they want to see) I can’t make a real assement.

But yes, death is the ultimate enemy… But, given the synopsis that appears to “rationally” entail that as such, any means justify the ends, and that if you accept the fantasy of a mechanic for resurrection then that gives broad latitude for moral justification for pretty much anything. Even one step further, a moral obligation to do pretty much anything.

I’d argue that Dr. Soran couldn’t delineate the fantasy afforded by the nexus from reality: whomever he killed could be conjured back by him in the nexus. The problematic actions could be “morally deferred”.

Regardless of any interpretation of the material, I (like Picard) reject the premise that death is the ultimate enemy. And, like Picard, I am very uneasy with any philosophy that claims to have simple derivable moral evaluations, especially if when you pull back the curtain the underlying mechanics boil down to “the ends justify the means”.

If these dont apply to the source, then it was a bad synopsis. Or It was a good synopsis and I’m bad at reading.

I gave my team the explicit instruction to call me out if I ever did anything that they’d estimate would make Picard disappointed in my leadership.

Someone brought up some harry Potter fanfic which apparently and bizarrely motivating the philosophy of peter thiel and his ilk.

I read the synopsis, and (regardless of your feeling on generations) is essentially extolling the philosophy of the bad guy in that movie.

Picard, reflecting: “Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives, but I’d rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment, because they’ll never come again. What we leave behind is not as important as how we’ve lived. After all Number One, we’re only mortal.”

Opposition is the easiest fucking job in the world

Half-right: South Park,but more recently Alberta separatism.

NDP in Canada became the official opposition in Canada under Jack Layton. Some percentage of people just are drawn to decisiveness, and the dem establishment is just not that.

My point is the floor is lower than 1/3, dems just don’t put up leaders who can crack it. Real floor is probably around 1/4

This question frustrated me because I actually do think senate REFORM is worth investigating.

But that’s a federal issue, and I desperately want the AB government to actually govern Alberta instead of acting like the official opposition to the federal government.

I don’t know the full context of the claim, but if I could even rebuild its own CLI executable to be able to run on the device and had network access, “Claude” (model actually runs on anthropic severs) could operate pretty comfortably on a smart device.

So, I think it just depends on what you “count” as self replicating. I’d count it. And it’s already easily at that point now.

I mean, it already can? I have a lab with a subnet of VMS. I I got an agent to install across all of them. It was like “BTW I didn’t, but there is an active CVE that would allow me to access the host and do the same directly on the hypervisors”.

Like, wow, cool. Thanks for the heads up.

Which is actually true. I DID appreciate the heads up. Patched the offending issue. But still… It implies anthropic could flip a “go rogue” switch on their end.

It’s weird, though.

I don’t really understand how we’ve somehow lost the ability (or stopped caring enough) to discern “says thing” from “issues direct threat”