Jump to content

legend

Members
  • Posts

    27,424
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by legend

  1. To be fair, this boards history has had plenty of drama, but we all stick around because we're a bunch of psychos. So welcome to the mad house!
  2. They only say her name a couple or times or something, so it's easy to miss, but as soon as I heard it I got pretty giddy
  3. My wife hated Gaia as a "character" but I liked the idea Asimov was playing with.
  4. FWIW, Trantor and the empire are explored a lot more in the prequel novels Prelude to Foundation and Forward the Foundation. There are changes, but this is why I say they are clearly trying to wrangle the whole universe into a show form and considering the novels huge time jumps that requires changes. Like, Demerzel is the most influential character in the entire Foundation timeline by a mile, but doesn't feature in the original 3 Foundation novels.
  5. Yeah, I also loathe mob rule and it's why that's the best argument I can make for "free speech." I just think we can and have to find a middle ground where we do punish the egregious but not "cancel" anything we reactively dislike. So far, I haven't had too much problem with what people have done. If it start tipping toward mob rule, I'll push back then.
  6. Yeah, I don't agree with it either. I think the best argument I could make for their side is people are fucking dumb and it may be better to instill a simple policy of "don't boycott stuff for words" than it is to teach people to have more nuanced perspective when they decide whether something goes over the line. Otherwise the tables can too easily turn and you get puritanical mob rule. But there is just so much awful shit out there I think we simply have to ask for better judgement as a society, one where we can boycott and protest the obviously bad shit. If we can't ask society to do that, we're fucked anyway so we might as well try.
  7. An advocate of philosophical free speech would probably tell you you shouldn't cancel your Netflix subscription over it and certainly not anything and everything the person in question touches in any form. They would tell you to keep your subscription if there is other content in which you find value, and just avoid watching the content you dislike.
  8. Chappelle specifically hasn't had anything of note happen to him, but there very much is a cancel culture that exists. When someone is a giant shit bird, the public doesn't simply ignore their show and comment online about they dislike them, they make pleas to have them removed from the network hosting them so *no one* can watch them. In most cases of stuff like that, I believe that is an appropriate response, but the people who ascribe to philosophically pure free speech would advocate that you just not watch their show and comment on why you dislike them yourself, not move to have them removed. I suppose there might be risk of something like that happen to him now, since you can find people petitioning Netflix to remove the content and cease further relationship with him.
  9. Yeah, because no one is going to become over-reliant on the autonomous targeting and just pull the trigger without thought. This is not how we navigate to the positive future with AI.
  10. This comic is of course correct, but I think a lot of opponents readily admit this fact, but further hold the position that "freedom of speech" is a more philosophical stance that asks people to respond to words only with their own words, rather than seeking other punitive measures. I suspect Chappelle is one of those people, although I haven't watched the latest special. Now, I disagree with that philosophical position: I think we ought to respond in more significant ways to certain kinds of speech. I even think in the age of misinformation that the government needs to tighten free speech rights to some degree too. But I think it's important to be cognizant of the opposing position.
  11. There are certainly some changes in this, but I'm actually pretty okay so far with the changes they made. While different, they're trying to weave in the same ideas in a form that works for a show medium and that's appropriate. That's in stark contrast to the I, Robot movie which made changes that practically spit on everything Asimov had to say about robots. The fact that Demerzel, who otherwise only features in the prequels (and other stories in a different way), is in the show already makes me so excited about the fullness of the universe they may strive for. Hopefully they don't fuck it up!
  12. I have absolutely zero doubt that there will be a further growth of distributed compute and data storage technology. And for efficient usable systems, none of that will rely on the blockchains timestamp mechanism that defines it and separates it from any other system before it I look forward to the day when tech bros stop championing using that exact mechanism merely because of the hype around blockchain.
  13. It's not just a naming issue for me. The problem I see is that when people do these distributed systems that they call blockchain, they are accurately adopting the whole of it, including this aspect of time stamping that has so many problems because people don't realize you can do distributed and safe systems *without* that piece. For example, NFTs for art are a dumb fucking system regardless for many reasons we've all enumerated here, but even dumber is to do what NFTs do you absolutely do not need this unique aspect that makes the blockchain the blockchain. The argument for it is even worse in this setting than it is for currency ledgers. Nevertheless, NFTs adopt it anyway because people seem to be under the delusion that blockchain invented all of it and its an all-or-nothing thing. (EDIT: I guess it's arguably equally dumb and I'm letting my disdain for assigning value to to links taint my view of it even further but point is you don't have to adopt this property, yet here we are because people go with the all-or-nothing attitude) I think it's critically important to educate more people making these decisions about what's actually going on so that they can take good ideas that the blockchain happens to also build on, without inheriting the counterproductive actually unique aspect of the blockchain. On the other hand, educating a lot of these people won't help because they're grifters anyway But I do think there are also honest people trying to adopt technology and doing it badly because they don't know better and it would be nice to help them!
  14. I don't see how this has anything to do with the security of timestamp systems. Timestamp systems don't even know what the content they're signing is. So if you're worried about content being outside your system, that is a completely orthogonal issue that the blockchain does not answer in any way. Trusted timestamp systems are famously computationally cheap. They don't process much and the processing blockchain does is absolutely not cheaper. If transaction time is your concern, blockchain is most definitely not the answer. Specifically a trusted timestamp system performs a single hash of an anonymous digest with the time and sends it back. That's it. Where data is stored is again an issue that distributed computing solves and is not related to what blockchain provides. If you're saying what you have in mind is not what exists, I think there is a strong chance what you're attributing to blockchain are things it didn't invent. If by "blockchain" you mean distributed systems that use cryptographic signatures and content hashing to verify integrity, that's not actually what "blockchain" was about. That's all existing effectively ancient technology, much of which already powers a lot of the internet. Blockchain regards and invented the very narrow mechanisms of timestamping when you don't want to trust any timestamp server nor even a collection of them. All of its uniqueness, benefit, and headaches regard that. TBC, timezones are also a well solved problem (at least in the context of ordering of events) and is not something you have to worry about with a timestamp system.
  15. The lack of trust in any system for any reason in no way lowers the costs; it rather creates much larger costs to maintain through various proposed consensus mechanisms (proof of work being the original) and has lots of hidden issues like buy from many active parties on a scale large enough that 50% attacks aren't possible. If you can do that with your own systems, you can still do that without blockchain. I'm not sure why you're touting distributed systems over the world as a feature of blockchain. What was new about "blockchain" was not distributed systems. Nor was it peer-to-peer. Nor was it digital signatures. Nor was it content integrity verification by hashing. What was new in "Blockchain" was solving a very specific problem about how to operate mostly securely without having any trusted systems for time stamping changes to a "ledger" of activities. And in solving that, it also introduces a mountain of other headaches. The moment you say "Here are some trusted distributed systems that only have to timestamp anonymized data" (which is safe technology that has existed for a long time) you no longer need "the blockchain" you just need standard cryptography and distributed computing tools, and consequently the only way to justify the use of blockchain is if that lack of trust for *anything* by *anyone* is an actual issue, which it never is in reality. In fact, the real issues in security you face regard an entirely different problem than timestamping updates, problems that are perhaps even worse in blockchain systems in practice, and at least no better in the best uses. If you don't believe me about the narrowness of what blockchain solved, Wikipedia says as much rather plainly: Blockchain - Wikipedia EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG I don't know how much you've deep dived on blockchain but I do encourage the technically minded to do so. "Blockchain" is far too often attributed as *the* solution to a set of things when the reality is all its unique complexity is to solve a very narrow issue that is never a real issue in practice. Personally, I did do a deeper dive on it earlier this year because I have been thinking through new systems for scientific publishing since journals and conferences are buckling (at least they are for AI/ML literature). I asked myself whether this would actually be a use for blockchain and spent time understanding it well enough that I would know the direction I would go to implement and apply it, and I made sure I understood enough of it to know what problems it was really solving. Once you do that, you realize how much hype around it is merely about technology that already existed and that the actual contribution of it solves a non-issue and only introduces headaches in the process of doing so.
  16. I deeply doubt that. The entire point of blockchain is to mange the situation when you can't trust any agency for anything, not even one to date and sign anonymized content. For an in-house system that lack of any trust is even more bizarre. Standard cryptographic methods and distributed computing covers it just fine. This is why I made the "Halo invented FPS" analogy: the actual useful pieces of technology behind block chain have existed forever, while the new parts solve a non-issue.
  17. Saying blockchain solves any meaningful problem is a lot of like saying Halo invented first person shooters. Except it's worse because Halo was still actually a good game.
  18. Agreed. If you also just want to track "ownership" such that you can confer other legal befits to proven owners, I feel like it's worth mentioning that you don't need a whole energy inefficient blockchain system. Even ignoring conventional methods of ownership that have existed since forever, on the digital spectrum you can handle this with just digital signatures and timestamp authorities which have existed since the early days of the internet and which much of the internet already builds off of for secure systems.
  19. The "thing" aspect is important if the only way to interact with it is by physically owning it. If I don't buy a painting, I can't hang it on my wall. If I don't buy an NFT, I still have an identical interaction experience as I would if I bought it. If the question is "what about buying a copy of the painting," yes, if the copy is actually indistinguishable, buying the copy is just as good as buying the original.
  20. There's a big part of me that is okay with these people being scammed in the faint hope it accelerates the collapse of this fucking nonsense. It occurs to me this is probably how @Commissar SFLUFAN feels about the US.
  21. Finished it tonight. Really enjoyed it. Had some really good emotional beats. Hope they make a second season; they certainly have ground they can explore.
  22. Today is a slightly better day than yesterday. Too bad it's going to be temporary.
×
×
  • Create New...