What about a Gitter-equivalent for each paper with logs. That's one way I envision paper's and conversational threads get related. Each paper would be a different channel. Maybe there are topic channels too.
Usually I don't care about these predictive tech articles: "oh what would this company do next?!" But this somehow seems important because as consumers as individuals and as companies we want to promote the right technology for our future. Buying into another generation of one line of technology can really skew where you'll end up if you wouldn't have known you would be even further off mark in the following generation...
This is super interesting! And if anyone else is curious about creating a project that monitors the range of RF amplitude and frequency at many data points around the world, then send me your contact info!
I want to see a record of this spectrum (human and non-human made) in frequency and amplitude to see how much it is (and hopefully "has") changed in physical space. I think interesting things would come out of this data.
Indeed, increasing and improving technology and reducing exposure can go hand-in-hand, and it seems that many people don't understand this. More antennas; less power.
The establishment demands that non-ionizing UV can be carcinogenic, but laugh if someone thinks that microwave - at various doses - could be! Why does it take so much evidence to even propose that low doses of the frequency that cook food can have adverse health effects on living humans? The fact that they're not willing to recommend bluetooth or earbuds without a mountain of evidence is another demonstration of closed mindedness. If something in nature has an even infinitesimal chance of being harmful, then you put it closer to your hands and legs - and not your eyes, face, and brain.
Sharp response! Yes, the "external to us" caveat is very powerful because it is contextually ambiguous and its scope can potentially reach the location of every atom in the universe. Every atom in the universe is not trackable because they are not self-tracking. The only way out is retreat into, "we're in a simulation..."
Yes, not only is this bullshit, but this article's premise is too. It takes A LOT of personal experience in the world to draw a true pattern about relationships. Even the opening sentence cries 'perceptual bias': "When was the last time you met a couple where one person was attractive and the other was not?"
I see this all of the time, but how often do you think the author sees it too and consciously or unconsciously brushes it off as, "they must not actually be together." This article is like intellectual white-nighting, though not directly offering to save any girls - it's implying that the author knows better than the women whom are caving in to the wrong stimuli via "online dating."
This is also a denial of sex statistics. If this new environment is keeping you ugly men from getting laid more today than you could yesterday, then who are all the ugly women banging? Otherwise, the author needs to claim that attractive men are actually getting laid more, while unattractive men are getting laid less or not at all. I don't see any evidence that less attractive men together have worse access to women in general than they had before. If anything, physical attractiveness of masculinity has decreased in some female's selection criteria over a long period of time due to the fact that a man's ability to physically defend himself and his family has become less necessary. Furthermore, studies have shown that the use of birth control causes women to be attracted to different (more feminine) men than they would otherwise - a side effect not often discussed or listed on the contraceptive package inserts.
Indeed, he should post his testosterone, cortisol, and adrenaline levels and the time of day they were taken. People who act like this is clear-cut are very silly and have little experience in biology and medicine.
Ya, hearing about scandinavia in the news is an interesting phenomena. I'm from America and I'm living in Scandinavia for the second time... While things seem to work pretty well, it's definitely nothing like I perceived from reading about it in the news. My guess is the difference is caused by equality. While I was able to live a good life in several US cities, living a decent life in scandinavia is just available for a larger percentage of the population due to equality.
Work on meditation and social relationships. It sounds like that felony was your biggest stumbling block, which means you'll appreciate growing past it more than anyone else. How can you grow past it? By developing that part of yourself. Work on health and your neurological disorder at the same time you work on these relationships and becoming and feeling normal again. Once you achieve that normality, going beyond it will be such a joy for you :)
I'm replying to your comment because it is on the top... But there is almost a majority of users in this thread using their browsers similarly - maybe we should get together and solve this. Maybe it will be a redesign of the difference between bookmarks and tabs as sort of "temporary bookmarks." I could see unused tabs getting popped off the stack into a bookmarks category which should automatically be selected by use of some simple search-engine based heuristic. One should be able to run their bookmarks through this categorizer to build consistent and limited categories.
Great analysis. Is there even a theory of what causes randomness? Where does it come from? Why should we believe it is discrete from "unpredictability?" Even in random number generators, the game is about pulling from widely unpredictable sources to generate entropy - the word "random" should maybe be a misnomer.
I've never believed in anything besides unpredictability in various scopes of systems. By scopes of systems, I mean, in some contexts of analysis it makes sense to deem a system temporarily closed to analyze certain parts of it. For example, the earth is not a closed system, but for some discussions and analysis it makes sense to simply treat it like one.
I don't know why it is so hard for this description - or paradigm - to proliferate to the masses and various pop writers. Writers so often are tying human consciousness to QM experimentation as if it were something special. The fact of the matter is: in each QM experiment the only things really interacting with the experiment are the atoms of the measurement apparatuses, sensors, and whatnot. In the case of the double slit experiment, we could have them "interpreted" automatically - and say, kill a cat if an interference pattern is created and not kill it if one is not made. Making the discussion about consciousness is a distraction from the core issues.