"But let’s not overlook the key point: continued growth in energy use becomes physically impossible within conceivable timeframes." (conceivable timeframes ~ few 100 years)
As far as I understood, the argument is not "we are doomed" but that there is a natural limit to the growth of energy consumption in the not too distant future using some naive assumptions.
In any case, it is implying that 2.9% growth per year is a lot! if it is extrapolated by just a few 100 years.
Do I misunderstand something? Why is this controversial?
But I did not yet read all the linked later posts.
I was not claiming that we can, I wanted to point out that we do not know if we can not. (maybe bad phrasing). Especially, as we observe that while science progressed, aspects which looked like that they could not be modelled at some point surprisingly could.
I guess, to count it as counter-example it would be necessary to have evidence that it is an aspect of reality and to have evidence that it can not be modelled.
If I did not miss something, we do not have a solid definition for consciousness.
I agree, that there could be definitions of consciousness which evade mathematical modelling, but then we have to still show that this specific definition is realised in nature, correct?
Is it a counter-example though? We currently seem not to possess the tools to model the principles of consciousness, but I think the parent was going in the direction of aspects of reality that in principle evade mathematical modelling. Thus which always would evade physics which is modelling nature using mathematics. I can not think of one.
"2d construction drawings are usually enough to reason about your mechanical problems and I wish there was an open source software that would augment the worklflow based on a pencil-and-paper metaphor."
Last year I was looking for something with the same use case in mind.
Quick 2D drawings, with modular blocks, and preferably open source.
The closest thing I found is qcad [1].
It has a lot to offer, but not everything is intuitive. So for me it was necessary to do a few of the tutorials.
There is also LibreCad [2]. A fork of qcad, which looks more modern (I did not try this one).
Still I did not yet find something that "augment the workflow" of the pencil and paper metaphor for mechanical applications. This would be really cool. Maybe even something compatible with the newest eInk devices.
Interesting phrasing. You could say that they implemented a process that has a exploitable judicial bug and one would like to avoid exploitable processes. The question for the future is, what is needed to have a process (Software, Laws, Norms,..) for minimising CSAM as much as realistically possible (with net positiv effect for society) but without being exploitable.
As the current processes seem not to be adequate.
Just to nitpick. What has the first to do with the second?
If I finance my free-to-eat restaurant by stealing bikes, the first part (free-to-eat) does not justify the second (stealing).
One could even argue, that If I am upfront about this and tell everybody that I steal bikes and that you have to agree to this practice to eat at my restaurant, the situation does not change much.
I suspect, your point is that If I only steal bikes of people eating in my restaurant and I ask for permission if they are seated(1), then this is not stealing. Because of the permission.
I would argue. It is an incredible.... bad deal for the one eating in my restaurant and it seems to be in bad faith.
It is even another story, if it is the only restaurant or food source in town. Then it goes well beyond stealing…
(1) And I certainly use all (bad/dark) tricks you can think of to get their permission.
"But let’s not overlook the key point: continued growth in energy use becomes physically impossible within conceivable timeframes." (conceivable timeframes ~ few 100 years)
As far as I understood, the argument is not "we are doomed" but that there is a natural limit to the growth of energy consumption in the not too distant future using some naive assumptions. In any case, it is implying that 2.9% growth per year is a lot! if it is extrapolated by just a few 100 years. Do I misunderstand something? Why is this controversial?
But I did not yet read all the linked later posts.