SherlockeHolmes's comments

Allow me to offer some qualities other than competency that are necessary for responsible research.

1. Purpose. what is it that drives one?

2. Integrity. when does one compromise it?

3. Awareness. is one able to disengage when one's ego (fueled by credentials) is activated.

Disclaimer: I don't agree with your conclusions regarding general needs and instincts (of human) and that a human possess abosolute/built-in/DNA-engrained inabilities (therefore, I do believe a human can fly). I also don't agree that Facebook is to share much of the blame for the chaotic human zeitgeist present today. I do believe a human is highly malleable and impressionable, and that these qualities have been exploited historically at various scales for various reasons.

"There is no vaccine yet for this."

There may not be any vaccine, but there may be a cure. If we change the language used to communicate within a setting/platform such as Facebook, possibly by using a subset of the language previously used or by adopting a more Formal construct.

But Facebook is a virtual neighborhood, with greatly increased bandwidth and range. It is difficult or impossible to achieve it in their settings.

One thought is that somewhere I'd need to translate the LISP objects into JS ones before putting them in the DOM. I think I would have to do this both before sending the JSON and after receiving it at the browser.

I came across Sibilant, which can do this for me on either side - I believe. Hoping to find out soon.

The discussion here is a reminder of how sufficiently competent people can defend to death a narrative that is logically consistent enough and has some form of "majority acknowledgment" for the sources of that narrative.

I want to remind us that rarely do enough credible (according to some formal and stringent definition) evidences exist for a given topic for an observer to make a conclusion with the kind of confidence we often display while remonstrating on these issues.

Specifically: it is naive to adopt a conclusive tone involving a person without liberty for over a decade, and possibly undergoing forms of punishment without due trial. I suspect not one of us here is trained enough in Law and have access to enough TRUE information to come to a judgment. If so, we are guilty of engaging in and spreading careless commentaries made about a case that combines possible human rights violation (its abundance in current time does not make this any less serious of a concern) with possible government interference in defining what constitutes journalism.

I want to leave you with this last thought - in majority cases in history, it has been profitable for the public to challenge the government on its policies, rather than to trust in its foresightedness and integrity.

all right. thank you for sharing the resources and information.

I am not invested in this topic, although I should be. In fact, some of the information you shared is valuable to my personal life.

I have a problem with oversimplification of hard problems, then claiming that they are currently understood. Then proceeding to build more extravagant and potentially dangerous solutions on the said platform.

The point you are debating - that of the influence of salts/neurotransmitters/more on brain chemistry, and hence on one’s mental state, can be so profound as to create a world where one experiences a vastly different emotional response to everyday events than what most others anticipate - is understood.

I contested that this is not enough to encourage experimentation with consciousness itself.

edit: the impact of chemistry can render itself in ways where the idea of one’s personality becomes fluid. chemistry can control my reaction to simple things, and render my ability to live my life debilitated. I understand that chemistry can shake at the very sense of having control over my self. I also understand that the external world barely acknowledges the role of chemistry in this, and likes to blame it wholly on the individual.

I am sorry that I was not satisfied.

Mind alterations are induced by drugs. Chemical imbalances influence the same. I just am not convinced that these evidences are enough.

Thank you.

please oblige and expand on this “easy attribution”. To be clear, it bothers me when we wave away the really hard problems - while we become too enchanted with solutions that barely build on current technology. This company injects chemicals near your brain stem and lets your heart pump it into all minuscule parts of your brain. The apparent allure comes from the potential development of a technology some time in the future that will allow a reanimation of the person seated in that saved brain.

the money they’ve raised so far is due to the possible improvements this proposed technology will bring to neuro research.

that is quite a pessimistic view on human capability (justified in current context because of shitbags) while equally bullish on human-developed AI capabilities. Sure, machine learning — blah — self-improving machines — blah - but I say, improving within bounds but cannot provide mathematical proof of the necessity of existence of such bounds blah.

machines have us beat on speed. however, let us not be blinded by this singularly awesome edge machines provide.

Accompanying hypothesis: Burqas and similar attire were dresses desert-dwellers wore to prevent themselves from not-totally-unexpected sandstorms. Later as Islam spread, this continued for following two reasons - i) out of reverence to early practitioners of Islam, and ii) instigated on and supported with latter literature by certain males.

you are being restricted by - I am making assumptions here - a lack of creativity and a desire to be sarcastic. We may also differ in our interpretation of what "engineering" is. There are numerous jobs already in existence that are likely a thousand years away from being able to reach automation. However, should economy proceed normally after achieving full automation of what is possible within this century - my statement may become clearer.

Distance between our respective positions on this topic is enough that I have to spend considerably more effort to communicate using words a more complete explanation.

p.s. I love to edit as much as I am able to, and dislike those that are prejudiced otherwise.

this is assuming that new industries shall not develop once complete automation (of those possible) is achieved. engineering jobs - for example - should branch out to many more folds of specializations compared to where they are now.

i don’t need as many dev related answers as just lots of varied queries that will take 10-30 minutes if i find the answer myself.

I did a bunch of stuff with pandas, 2 or three functions from numpy, and used a virtualbox to get an .exe out of my python file - using, I think it was pyinstaller.

outside of that I wrote 5-10 commands of DOS as a kid, then a bunch of years later wrote 50-100 lines of BASIC over two years to program this robot that won second place when we added a fire detecting capability to its sonar ears. the robot could follow you around, stop and turn at walls, detect fire using a heat sensor I think, and put water on it.

hah ok. i’m not a coder nor a hacker, so i can’t say i’ve tried much. some of us really never grow out of our smart-mouthed phase. i especially find a lot of babies in places like reddit, stack exchange, and a few more.

No, but that would be a promising solution when I have a team. I was hoping for a cheat-code into the HN collective knowledge.

Now, I did not have a chance to ask her what she meant - but here is my understanding. She had been sent there due to someone reporting me as a suspicious individual standing near said location. I can see this because of the hoodie I was wearing. So I am assuming she was referring to me when she responded "it's already coming off" in her walkie-talkie, meaning the nuisance who had roused the attention of campus police (me) was thankfully walking away.

I don't think the conditioning process advised here is sound if considering the subject's psychological health.

You missed his point. He is pointing out that Comcast (and other ISPs) already has substantial power over end-users, since in most cases they are the only ones that can provide internet connectivity.

However, one can easily choose to never use Facebook and not lose quintillionth of the information available on the internet. Facebook or any other such service is one of a quintillion of end-nodes that you can reach on the internet.

Comcast is the choke through which your internet connectivity comes through, and you are proposing to allow increased manipulative power to them.

This was a careless mistake on my part. I shouldn't noticed that the link directed to comments instead of the article itself.

I agree that it isn't an obvious case as it was with a pre-teen with a toy gun (Tamir Rice) or unarmed cigarette vendor without a license (Eric Garner).

Here, the man was armed with a gun (albeit unloaded). He was unstable enough for his girlfriend to put the police on suicide watch during her 911 call. If the police had to take classes on handling various situations, this particular scenario would be a final exam question. Moreover, I'm afraid that a majority of our policemen would have flunked this question.

Law enforcement is meant to be complex, and should require sophisticated knowledge in law and philosophy as prerequisites for aspiring policemen. Each police officer working on duty is not only serving as the enforcer but also as a judge. He judges whether a subject should be let go, detained, or - shocking as it may seem - be put to death.

A well functioning civil society founded on the idea of some social contract is bound to provide its citizens with some rights and protection. The prospect of summary execution at the any sign of threat to its law enforcers appears to fall short of this requirement in my eyes.

The officer in question in the topic being discussed, Stephen Mader, acted ahead of his time. He demonstrated the form of policing possible in our society with further sophistication of the minds of our officers. He took decisions that prioritized the right (to life) of his citizens. He was fired for doing so.

I am sure he would have shot Mr. Williams, having had his gun trained on him, had he chosen to make any threatening move.

It is a fine line, I admit. But is this not what progress is based on? Have we not advanced our civilization by continuing to investigate finer and finer still of dimensions? Why do we continue to rely on such crude measures when it comes to law enforcement? Are we incapable of serving our citizenry with increased space for preservation of their rights?