> Whenever anyone asks for evidence I start to wonder why they need the proof. Why did you need this link? Do you have a business relationship with Amazon?
I had made an oath to myself to not return to Hacker News and engage with the community after I was once temporally banned on Hacker News. But when I saw your stupid comment and recognized its disingenuous manipulation and misinformation, a pushing of an evil and harmful narrative ultimately made for whatever reason you might have, I returned to Hacker News to downvote your comment. Thanks for creating a vulnerability in the world for me to exploit the loophole in my self-imposed oath that allows me to return. I'm back.
And you need not defend anything from an an elitist aristocrat like me. We don't live in the same reality—and that is okay. Because there are multiple realities. Unless you wish to object to this notion and assert, like an imperialist, that there is only one reality and that I have to "necessarily conform" to it. Otherwise, you may subscribe to your reality of God given rights, goods, and societies while hyper-reality cosmos-nauts traverse their higher and incomprehensible planes of existences like Lovecraftian antagonists.
Is the education of the average person worth it, or anything significant? Considering the average person does not have any significant production capability, a power-law probability distribution average. Not everyone can make things and contribute to society like Elon Musk or else everyone would be named Elon Musk. It's best to just classify only exceptional individuals as more important in large scale public policy. Idealistic socialists would disagree with me but productive reality and politics are not disjoint.
How fast can a single board computer such as the Raspberry Pi compute the solution to a linear programming problem (i.e., a mathematical optimization problem of the form Ax < b) that has, literally, trillions of constraints? Or can it even be done at all what with the large pool of constraints to navigate through? And how is such a prospect and execution compared to the computations done in the middle of the twentieth century which used weaker computers?
Indeed, since truth does not exist, language and communication is impossible. But the truth predicate for propositions isn't necessary, as truth doesn't exist to legitimately create a legitimate need for any sort of necessity. So, instead of searching for the truth predicate, and as grammar and syntax, those subjective and arbitrary creators of languages and communications, are the ultimate sources of meaning rather than any inherent meaning itself, why not look for something else? Or establish something else? Like untruth and uncertainty?
Thermodynamics and the quantum most certainly would not exist if you did not bring them up. You are now the master of existence. I dub thee Molecule Man.
How do you know that there is a communication going on and in what absolute sense does it occur, without resorting to any certain sense as certainty always comes up short, never converging to actual truth and is, therefore, not suitable for matters of truth. Any meaning given to any instance of language depends on subjective based grammars that give life to words, indeed conforming to a regime of, ultimately synthesized, grammars which don't exist without a subject of self-governing origination. Every measure of consistency requires a necessary foundation, with the foundation always being some imagined standard based on certainty, that commonly found tool of the mind that never really tells you anything. The emprical, material, and even biology and its evolutionary theories? Knowledge of their objects always depends on interpretation and interpretation is always not objective but instead subjective. And for there to be a commitment, there must be a personality. But personality is, logically, dependent on a regime of truth and it is codified by the user of this regime—a mess of endless self-reference, as truth is wont to do. Really, at this rate, I'll eventually converge to the truth that there is no truth, that real truth is not, instead of being is. Indeed, I'm going one truth further.
Interesting. But I'm skeptical about the existence of an absolute truth. Because, ultimately, what would be the essence of what it is, truth? And why would it exist? What source would be the source of this truth, ultimately? And how would we know, especially as truth implies untruth and therefore the possibly of cognitive error?
> A subset of the authors point is the "truth collapse". It's increasingly difficult to differentiate truth from falsehood. Also increasingly difficult to differentiate between truth and 'almost' truth.
It's kinda hard for there to be, in actuality and in an objective sense, a destruction of truth when, really, truth never existed in the first place except as a perspective-based pragmatic tool and even a self-actualized Other-being. Really, when one person claims that truth is becoming destroyed or something, such occurence is actually an instance of a contest of truths, all equally valid, in essence, with the one that has the most ambition able to enjoy the fruit of victory. That's why "fake news" is often touted: a transgressive action on its antithesis and opponent that is the "false."
It is ultimately, in a certain sense, a mathematical optimization problem to determine the optimal configuration of the entire infrastucture of additional power sources. Perhaps like finding the optimal location position set of cell phone towers, perhaps using k-means clustering. Furthermore, additional issues must be resolved like legal regulations compliance—the decision maker or engineering agent has preferences or desires to satisfy.
I intended for my phrase “confident realist materialism founded on a certain anthropocentric presumption of Cartesian dualism,” in all its entirety, to refer to the object of the critique. I apologize if my carelessness caused you to interpret the second half of the phrase (the part after the word “materialism”) as a mischaracterized signifier of you, the subject or cause of the critique. Regardless, I thank you for providing an organization of your advanced philosophy and the fundamental mechanics of it.
An inspiring critique of and response to confident realist materialism founded on a certain anthropocentric presumption of Cartesian dualism. It exemplified skill—its own powerful confidence—and experience, deserving great commendation. The education born from witnessing such activity has a high aesthetic value to me.
Contrary to the dominant narrative of this Hacker News post’s comment thread, I find this mathematical modeling exercise to be rather informative and inspiring. Life sustaining. It can be considered practice that keeps the vital muscles active.
Very inspiring work and achievement. It is perhaps the equivalent of the application of quantum mechanics during the middle to late twentieth century. As such, perhaps "decentralized general computing" is more plausible than I thought.
What possible relationships exist between this phenomenon of successful people being middle-aged and not young and the common meme that asserts that life is short?
This is the original poster. I shared this source code repository here on Hacker News in an altruistic and strategic attempt to encourage both the advanced development of nascent software development individuals and the creation of new and novel video games for the 2020s.
Google Inc. is cutting jobs? Is this actually a move by automation’s machinic desire to displace human laborers or human capital? Pieter Levels, an expert in startups, said that “Netflix wants to have less employees, but each one now paid higher. For example, they'll pay one million dollars per year for one engineer instead of paying $300,000 per year for three engineers each.” This is actually making me anxious to the point where I’m trying to pick a skill to appease a machinic desire’s new and progressive, if a little anti-anthropocentric, labor production power and capital market demands so that I can satisfy a certain power-law probability distribution function’s optimization.
I had made an oath to myself to not return to Hacker News and engage with the community after I was once temporally banned on Hacker News. But when I saw your stupid comment and recognized its disingenuous manipulation and misinformation, a pushing of an evil and harmful narrative ultimately made for whatever reason you might have, I returned to Hacker News to downvote your comment. Thanks for creating a vulnerability in the world for me to exploit the loophole in my self-imposed oath that allows me to return. I'm back.