Just wrote about this further down. I would be satisfied with identity retention with ALL neurons replaced, if certain conditions were met.
I'll just copy/paste the relevant part so no one needs to follow the other comment* if they don't want to:
---
And finally, I would settle for a not so perfect copy of a brain scenario. Magic "Nanobots" replacing the neurons of a subject in vivo, gradually over the span of a few days/weeks/months. The new neurons can be non-biological, but must work identically to the original ones and obviously the connectome should be identical. The subject would be asked if they feel ok with this process regularly and the general part of the brain that is responsible for answering that question would be the last part to be replaced, otherwise it would be cheating wouldn't it? On completion, I would assume it's the same person and if it was me I would assume I'm the same person. This preserves continuity (of the self) to my personal satisfaction. Anything less than that is cryonics-level of bull*.
---
Edit:
> clone instantiated in a computer.
Oh and as far as clones go, I would assume it is the same identity. There would be no original or copy after this, all copies and original are the same as a string of bytes in memory. But... Only at inception. Then as more life experiences each one accumulates, the more they diverge and cannot be treated as the same person. And as such, I wouldn't let a clone like this, nowhere near my imaginary partner for life.
No. That's the definition of damage. "Change" doesn't imply loss. Damage does. With change you can add and/or subtract characteristics. Damage subtracts, it is a more precise term for the examples you gave. Using such a broad term as "change" makes it a euphemism for damage. A bit dishonest really.
>I didn't say everyone was ok with every change.
Neither did I.
>"different strokes for different folks" take.
Dead folks included? That's absurd. Also, who is comfortable losing a decade of memories? Is "comfort" a euphemism for "acceptance due to not having a choice on the matter"?
>Different people how (have) different opinions on what constitutes the self.
Because no one asks the dead guy! (tongue in cheek)
>You're equivocating
How can you be so sure? I have has much right to have an opinion on what constitutes the self as much as you do. Equivocating would imply that my opinion on what constitutes the self is based on an error, a misunderstanding. But you don't even know my opinion on that, we haven't got to it yet.
>Society has generally been
If that were the case then there would be no argument. All opinions opposed to accepting whatever comes out of this process as the same person are hereby dismissed due to tradition. Society has generally been such and such. It's settled then.
>Again, you're assuming
No, it is you who's assuming you know my opinion on this.
Glad you asked, here's my opinion:
Continuity. The ship of Theseus (with all planks and everything replaced) will always be the same ship. The copy of the ship of Theseus built right next to the original won't become the original ship of Theseus just because the original is destroyed.
The process destroys the original. This does not promote the copy to original status. It breaks continuity. If the original wasn't destroyed, the copied person and the original are easily distinguished by the people who witnessed the process since both cannot occupy the same space at the same time, one of them is definitely more to the left than the other, at least.
Now for the original and the copy, both will think they are the original if there's no information that satisfies them both about who's who. I would consider that lying to either one of them about their status is a serious crime.
But in this process, there's definitely a corpse left behind. Probably not complete since the copying is destructive to the brain. But the existence of a corpse will definitely convince the copy is the copy. The copy might stubbornly refuse to accept it as such, but that's on them and they are responsible for the consequences that stance might bring.
This proposed technology is messy. They don't even advertise a copy. Just a scan that could one day maybe used to make a "copy"(within questionable standards of what constitutes a copy in the future). That makes things easy for me, really. If it was a teletransportation paradox (without the killing part) then I'd have to accept that the original and the copy are the same, atom for atom, and now there's simply two of them, like a string of bytes on a computer, neither is the original or the copy and they are just the same individual that start diverge due to the impossibility of both occupying the same space at the same time, yada yada yada. But this isn't that, it's the cheap, oh so cheap knock off that only a sad few will settle for. If ever.
So no, I'm not equivocating death with the end of the self. This is just not a teletransportation paradox situation. The technology the article presents is not even close to make an atom for atom copy of a person. Furthermore, I figure if we ever reach that level of technology, we won't need to let the original die to make a copy, we could just cure whatever they are suffering from.
And finally, I would settle for a not so perfect copy of a brain scenario. Magic "Nanobots" replacing the neurons of a subject in vivo, gradually over the span of a few days/weeks/months. The new neurons can be non-biological, but must work identically to the original ones and obviously the connectome should be identical. The subject would be asked if they feel ok with this process regularly and the general part of the brain that is responsible for answering that question would be the last part to be replaced, otherwise it would be cheating wouldn't it? On completion, I would assume it's the same person and if it was me I would assume I'm the same person. This preserves continuity (of the self) to my personal satisfaction. Anything less than that is cryonics-level of bull**.
I wouldn't call that degrees of change but degrees of damage. The thing is, past a certain degree of damage people stop having opinions, so how would you know the individual is comfortable with it?
In this case, the damage is total. The degrees end here, it reaches a binary state: from alive to dead. And then something else entirely says they are the dead person and they are alive.
The question is, does society accept a complete switcheroo? The individual died in the process, they cannot give an opinion on this. The copy is another entity. There are no degrees, it's all absolutes with this process.
>Automotive repair is barely a moat, because you don't need that much training to work those jobs.
You need to study for 3 years to be a car mechanic. And even then you'll need baby sitting for a while in the auto-shop because no one trusts the new guy fresh out of school, with good reason.
>There's a lot of people who want to do it.
No there isn't. What do you mean by lot of people? Automotive repair is a blue collar job with intense physical strain, you're exposed to chemicals you shouldn't be, there will be hearing loss involved no matter how much protection you have and it doesn't even pay all that well, considering the risks involved and the amount of training you need. And no, it's not because the market is saturated with car mechanics, it's because auto repair shops have a lot of pressure to be cheap. Job listings are full of car mechanic openings, you'll never be unemployed.
All the "if's" presented are solved by relocation and not even that much of it, except for this:
>if fewer people are buying cars
Then the skills are easily transferable to other vehicles. But less people are buying cars already, they use uber, which involves a car. A car that needs 10x more repair time than the car you drive daily.
So yeah, auto repair is a good moat. It's complex, not everyone can do it, it's not licensed in most cases (unless you work for a brand or a niche) but there's reputation involved and it's always needed. It just doesn't pay all that well, specially not compared to what I see on HN's monthly whoshiring.
>Serif fonts are often perceived as more traditional, but they are also more demanding to use effectively. While a skilled typographer can, in theory, produce excellent results with Times, using it in its default digital form is not considered professional practice.
This reads like your CEO is mixing an argument against serifs with an argument against Times specifically. Later on they make a case against Times' lack of support for more modern features in digital fonts, which is a fine argument, but a question comes to mind: is the solution a sans-serif font?
It seems to me upon reading the article that Rubio's staff, or Rubio himself, is being overly specific with the font and I suspect that, being uninformed, what they really want is a serif font rather than Times New Roman, specifically. Maybe I'm wrong.
In any case, I'd like for you/your CEO to make it clearer, if you will: do you believe official government communications should use a sans-serif font altogether or is it just a problem with Times? Or both?
On a more personal note, is there any serif font you'd suggest as an alternative?
>SMS is banned.
Really? I didn't know that. Can you point me to a document that states that? I'd greatly appreciate it.
>SafetyNet or Play Integrity
A few days ago I did inspect the NovoBanco (Portuguese) apk, and I did look for SafetyNet specifically. They didn't use it. But since I'm not that familiar with the android eco-system I couldn't really tell if Play Integrity was used instead. But I did find a LOT of HMS (Huawei Mobile Services) stuff, and some if it was definitely related to security.
I might take a look at it again tomorrow.
I was curious if I could sideload the app without logging into a google account, meaning without using google services, but all I did was a tiny bit of static analysis instead of actually trying it.
If you have any write-ups on crazy hacks for foss systems, again it would be awesome if you could share them and greatly appreciated. Cheers
Also, is using HMS a normal thing in android development? Last I checked Huawei was persona non grata in the west, at least when it came to hardware like network equipment and consumer devices. I was surprised when I saw HMS in the apk.
When I wrote "the bank" I meant, the bank in question, which is the one mentioned in the URL. Hope this makes it clearer for you.
As for alternatives, yes there are, I'm still figuring which ones do not require an app on the smart-phone, though.
I believe I've found a fair alternative after asking a few friends but, I have to account for other factors as well, like, how secure their infrastructure is.
This is because offline 2FA keyfobs were never that popular in Portugal (to my knowledge), unlike 2FA via SMS which I find less secure that keyfobs, but now with the SCA directives from the EU, most banks are jumping on the App 2FA bandwagon. Some do offer a government issued alternative [0] but it still requires an app. I'd be perfectly happy to sign in with my Citizen's ID card reader but that is also rarely implemented (bank-wise), specially since the Chave Movel Digital app from the government [0].
Bottom line, most major banks are going in one direction (deploying their own apps onto customer devices), while smaller banks are staying put (with SMS 2FA) but their security was never that great. So I'm still prospecting and yes, there's a bank co-op on my list also.
Oh, and by "security" I'm mostly going by feel here. Like, if the web interface is a bit jankie I don't feel secure. I'm not going to look into obfuscated .js and pretend like I know anything about web security.
Effectively, if the client doesn't download the App, they will never be able to log into the homebanking website again. The bank enforced this and now if you login normally it will redirect to a page where you can download the app or use up one of three remaining chances to login. I am down to two. From now on, I'm only able to use ATM's or go to an actual teller to make payments and such. The app requires that I have a Google account or an Apple account and I think that's just messed up, specially for a Portuguese bank.
The app on the google store is pt.novobanco.nbsmarter if anyone is curious. It has interesting permissions as well.
All the time. Nothing political about the Punch mission, or the current solar maximum spewing out a bunch of flares last year. Actually it's a bit of a shame the Punch mission wasn't launched sooner, so we could see amazing flares in 3D. But that's just me, I like sun stuff.
The point is, if you seek political stuff you'll find it, even a political spin on a recent flare that is being yet again compared to the Carrington Event. I'm here for the sun stuff and other space stuff. I'm here all the time, before and after the dust settles. I'm here for the "boring" stuff. If you have to ask that question, you're a tourist. Sorry if it comes across as gatekeeping. But it really looks like that to me.
Sure the thing's been politically amplified into oblivion by the parties involved. That doesn't mean ranting about the gulf of america and all the other things the author doesn't like about the current political situation in that arstechnica article, is a good suggestion to be bumped into a top comment. Neither is burying exodust's comment which I think has a very good point that I agree with.
Quote from the arstechnica article: "This is why we can't have nice things.". Yes it is. This is exactly it. Guess I'll just have to wait for the tourists to go elsewhere. Anyone who came for political reasons and stayed for the boring stuff is very much welcome, as always.
It's curious how you use such a big temperature range. I've never used a pinecil despite having friends telling me very good things about it, which picked my interest a bit.
Can you tell us what exactly do you solder at 320ºC and what is the exact type of solder you use and/or Pb and Sn percentages?
Also, is your pinecil calibrated? And which tips do you use at that temperature?
Anecdotally, what usually happens to me at lower temps is the tip and/or the solder wire sticking a bit while I'm soldering which I take as a sign that the liquid solder won't flow correctly and that I have to spend more time giving it heat from tip, than I should.
I cannot imagine anyone soldering with SAC at 300ºC. Not even leaded solder with pre-heating as merely an option. But somehow those values crop up from time to time.
I'm not going to debate them though, I'll just dump my values, it might help someone.
My job involves soldering at least once a week from through-holes to SMDs(mostly), 1.6mm to 0.8mm pcb thickness, from 1206 smd to 0402 (imperial) sizes. From flimsy 0402 resistors to beefy 1cm² all metal casing inductors from hell.
To do all this I use a JBC soldering station with C245 and C210 tips. I also use a non-brand hot-air station for TSSOP ICs with exposed pad on the underside for heat transfer. Sometimes I use a hot-plate as well, and a reflow oven while we're at it.
On the JBC:
For leaded solder: 350ºC on both C245 and C210 tips. I do increase it to +/- 360ºC on occasion to solder near big stubborn ground planes on the pcb. Less than that is impossible without pre-heating because I can't afford to spend more than a few seconds on each soldering op, both because have other things to do and because I can't overheat components. Overheating is also dependent on the time you spend on each component. Might bump it up to 380ºC on those inductors and switch the tips to beefier ones like the chisels and the knives.
For unleaded SAC: 360ºC to 380ºC on those same tips, and I might bump it up to 400ºC again on those inductors.
On the hot-air station:
For leaded: 275ºC
For SAC: 282ºC
On the hotplate: 240ºC for both SAC and leaded. (Mostly repair work after pcbs come out of the oven.)
On the oven: It's a temperature curve and I only use leaded solder paste. Peak at 240ºC.
NOTE1: All the soldering wire I use is flux cored. I tend to use extra flux a lot (Chipquik SMD291), even if it's not really necessary. But on lead-free SAC it's always obligatory.
NOTE2: We don't have any fancy setup where I work and it's overall barely professional in my opinion. Pre-heating is not used much if at all so, I don't have any temperature values to share in that regard.
NOTE3: The SAC solder wire I use is Sn99Cu0,7Ag0,3 EVO11 from CYNEL. I like the brand but I feel the need to try other formulations for different use-cases so I can get away with using lower temperatures on specific temperature sensitive components. On leaded I don't feel that need at all.
I'll just copy/paste the relevant part so no one needs to follow the other comment* if they don't want to:
---
And finally, I would settle for a not so perfect copy of a brain scenario. Magic "Nanobots" replacing the neurons of a subject in vivo, gradually over the span of a few days/weeks/months. The new neurons can be non-biological, but must work identically to the original ones and obviously the connectome should be identical. The subject would be asked if they feel ok with this process regularly and the general part of the brain that is responsible for answering that question would be the last part to be replaced, otherwise it would be cheating wouldn't it? On completion, I would assume it's the same person and if it was me I would assume I'm the same person. This preserves continuity (of the self) to my personal satisfaction. Anything less than that is cryonics-level of bull*.
---
Edit:
> clone instantiated in a computer.
Oh and as far as clones go, I would assume it is the same identity. There would be no original or copy after this, all copies and original are the same as a string of bytes in memory. But... Only at inception. Then as more life experiences each one accumulates, the more they diverge and cannot be treated as the same person. And as such, I wouldn't let a clone like this, nowhere near my imaginary partner for life.
* - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47467300#47471320