The issue with this is that advertisements don't exist to answer a question, or provide useful information. They exist to sell a product - whose efficacy, usefulness or appropriateness to the buyer is orthogonal to the effectiveness of the advertisement. Anything can be advertised, from a crooked demagogue to a placebo herbal remedy. The only difference is the budget and the regulation. Advertising is not about the spread of knowledge, it's about the promotion of a good or service that's being sold, period.
One of two things will happen. Either someone will build a huge business on top of a really great RSS reader, gradually adding features to feeds that customise to compete with substack / twitter etc; until the point where regular old feeds don't work as well, or at all in free readers. This is the IRC to Slack pipeline.
Or, RSS will continue as an important technology, but one that's sidestepped in favour of social networks.
I miss the old web, blogging, deep knowledge and intellectually diverse voices spread and hosted widely. But it stands in contrast to the centralising, oligopolistic tendencies of capitalism, and arguably high technology itself.
Standup comedian is a freelance job. It's perfectly possible to be unable to perform and still be a comedian, whether due to lack of material or lack of opportunity.
Why "Of course". Likely the percentage of MISTer owner legally dumping retro cards small. It's a subset of a subset of a subset. Gamer -> retro gamer -> hardcore retrogamer -> hardcore retrogamer that has high enough regard for copyright law that an unenforceable rule that doesn't benefit the original developers should be obeyed.
This is nothing to do with low or high income countries. Europe exists. I've lived (and had local phones) in Ireland, Germany and the UK. I've never had a spam call. I've had less than 10 spam texts ever. The US (from an outsider perspective) just doesn't seem to enforce consumer protections in general.
There are countless people who I couldn't enumerate who I might be potentially interested. I don't want them 'recommended' or algorithmically forced on me, but retweets and quote tweets have effectively surfaced their work over time. I absolutely don't want to have to do that again and again across social network. Twitter 'mutuals' aren't like facebook friends. They're a two way asynchronous conversation with a pool of people with varying relationships of wildly different kinds. Many of whom are pseudonymous.
That's a hell of a claim. Any citation for that? I could see Tiktok doing something that extreme, but it would be incredibly bad press for youtube. Simpler explanation might be that lower priced ads run against dubious content and that those tend towards the more spammy and extreme.
Two possibilities - 1 - we take actions that are preconscious and reactive, and add consistency in later post hoc explanations.
Or 2 - the conscious reflective self is more like a saccade of attention moving between various systems operating according to its overall supervision.
I think two makes much more sense, since we don't observe the actions of others to be random or inconsistent (in ordinary circumstances), no matter how quickly they're responding. If George is on edge, and we throw a ball at George, George will do what he generally does - flinch, react with anger etc. George won't catch the ball perfectly in contrast with his emotional state. If Sue sees a famous criminal on the street, Sue will generally react as Sue would be expected to based on her priors - scream, run, freeze etc. Sue is unlikely to smile and raise her hand for a shake. Circumstances where we and others deviate from the 'reasonable' instantaneous response are rare, comical and associated with inattention, distraction or visceral symptoms (like illness). Therefore either we presuppose another personality operating at a preconscious level - or we are queuing classes of responses that make sense on some general level, even if they occur too fast for linguistic reflection or 'conscious' perception.
The language example in the comment above is a great reflection of this. We are able to carry out coherent, situationally appropriate conversation including symbolic reasoning. So I'm not sure what kind of conditioned mechanism or second personality is supposed to be responsible if consciousness is eliminated.
There are lots of (expensive) headphones that will last 30 hours or more of playback, including the excellent Sony mx 1000 line. They have great noise cancellation, and older versions are often on sale for a significant discount.
I've seen several of the creepy / disturbing live videos described above - the begging family and the baby with the large deformed head specifically. Each have been shown multiple times, despite immediately reporting them. So this isn't a unique artefact of OP's experience. There clearly are ways of bringing these videos, which are clearly pretty far outside any normative preference pattern, to the front of the algorithm.
Shouldn't have to point this out - but I do not search for, like or watch anything remotely similar on Tiktok.
Seems like a relatively consistent, generally agreed on definition at least of 'investigative journalist' shouldn't be impossible. Something like... 'A news gatherer, who uses primary sources and triangulates investigative techniques to gather information, establish causation and contribute to understanding of emerging and ongoing news.'
> I think most physicists think that if you started with a description of the positions and velocities etc of all the particles in a human, and put them into a supercomputer the size of the moon, and had the computer run a simulation using the standard model, then the simulated human would act identically to a real human.
Just created a throwaway to reply to this. As a trained therapist (currently working in another field), with a degree in psychology, this seems... Seriously ill informed. Do physicists really think this?
Imagine you create your perfect simulated human, that responds according to the exact phenotype of the person you're simulating. Lets remember you'll have to either duplicate an existing person, or simulate both the genotype and the in-vitro environment (especially the mix of uterine hormones) present for the developing foetus. Now you have to simulate the bio, psycho, social environment of the developing person. Or again, replicate an existing person at a specific moment of their development - which depending on which model of brain function is correct may require star trek transporter level of functional neuroimaging and real time imagining of the body, endrocrhine system etc.
So lets assume you can't magically scan an existing person, you have to create a believable facsimile of embodiment - all the afferent and efferent signals entering the network of neurons that run through the body (since cognition doesn't terminate in the cortex). You have to simulate the physical environment your digital moon child will experience. Now comes the hard part. You have to simulate their social environment too - unless you want to create the equivalent of a non-verbal, intellectually disabled feral child. And you have to continually keep up this simulated social and physical environment in perpetuity, unless you want your simulated human to experience solitary psychosis.
This isn't any kind of argument against AGI, or AGI sentience by the way. It's just a clarification that simulating a human being explicitly and unavoidably requires simulating their biological, physical and social environment too. Or allowing them to interface with such an environment - for example in some kind of biological robotic avatar that would simulate ordinary development, in a normative social / physical space.