legend

This was my exact reaction. They really need to change that headline.

Too many deaths lately

I kinda thought they already were owned by WotC, so I guess I'm okay with this.

“Nerds” like Zuck and Musk are undeserving of the title. “Asshole” is more fitting.

I mean, you can always hit someone in the head with a mallet if you want to erase their memories, but if you mean safe precise control of memories that can be turned on and off at will as in the show, we are far away from it being possible

I just saw this angle to this nonsense: Saying all this shit publicly can't be legal, right? Even saying it privately as a threat seems questionable. It has so many affects on the market. This isn't the first time he's fucked around like this. Can we just arrest this asshole already? And if it is legal, wtf is wrong with this country?

Regarding what their work is

I wonder what Facebook will do next to make me dislike them even more than I do now. On the one hand, it’s hard to imagine disliking them more. But on the other hand they have a solid track record of finding new ways to be awful.

Damn it

Feels like everyone has just been waiting for the day when we can finally show where the standard model breaks down.

To be clear, I would probably take this one step further; the whole mechanism is important itself, not just the changes in the primary processed information state. For example, it's conceivable (though not practical) to record information about the state of every neuron in the brain over time. You could then "play" that sequence of information over time and could argue that the "patterns are changing," but that doesn't make what you're playing conscious, because the most critical pieces are missing in that recording playback: the mechanisms by which the brain operates and process information. I think that might be consistent with what you're saying, but I just thought I should be clear

Like many deep philosophical questions, such as "is a hot dog in a bun a sandwich?" the answer is often rendered obvious once you operationally define the question, so you'd have to start by giving the definition you have in mind!

I don't know what beliefs are commonly held, but depending on what you mean, I'd say those are all equivalent or not all equivalent I'm hesitant to say the "pattern" is what is important; e.g., a record of information processed by some system is not the same as the information processing system itself. However, it sounds like you're using "pattern" more broadly to talk about different mediums or architectures of otherwise full information processing systems. If that's what you mean, then I do think those are all equivalent, or at least see no reason to treat one more specially than another. There are well established ways to mathematically determine computational equivalence of different systems and it's incredibly trivially to have wildly different architectures that each are capable of computing all computable functions barring physical memory limitations. (This goes back to Turing and Church's seminal work on universal computation). This is similarly why in theory, there's nothing stopping conventional computer architectures from being programmed to be functionally identical to people (though in practice it's very plausible the conventional computer architecture isn't efficient in the ways necessary to function like people.) I wouldn't conclude that. Any meaningful definition I'd give for sentient would regard what the system is actually doing/computing. That you could potentially build computers out of arbitrary physical materials doesn't mean everything in the world is computing the things we'd define as pertinent to sentience.

Who could have possibly seen this coming?

Every day that passes I become more confused about how the world manages to work at all.

Jesus fucking Christ. Lets just burn this country to the ground already.

You should try!

That's nice, I'm not sure it changes the comment though! We shouldn't be deferring to the authority of my best bud's take based on the same information we have either

I'm not sure we should be deferring to some social media guy named "Jomboy" as the authority of the actors internal states when he has no more information than us, but his interpretation seems pretty similar to what I just said

I'm unconvinced it was that kind of laugh. I might be able to buy that he was willing to "laugh it off" but after seeing Jada's response got triggered by her being hurt. We unfortunately don't see their reactions after they cut back to Chris.

I don't understand the joke, nor why Will went from seeming to laugh to anger. Someone make this make sense for me! EDIT Okay, so the GI Jane joke was in reference to her doing a bald hair style, which is apparently in reaction to alopecia that she's struggling with. So I guess now I get the joke and anger. Still not sure why he went from seeming to laugh at it to angry. Did he not get it at first?