You’re missing the initial step.

1. Assume that these proposals are correct.
2. Given the proposals are correct, all of them contain a common structure.
3. Given the common structure…

Both OP commenter and myself take umbrage with #1 (if I can speak for them; they make disagree with me). I assume that if we trace the sources for the letter that we’ll see the reasons we’re able to make all of these logical leaps using other results in the field that come out of these proposals. I also assume that, if one of these systems is the foundation for a fully consistent theory of quantum gravity, then its conclusions are valid. This paper doesn’t address that initial assumption though so things like the article summarizing it are begging the question.

There are many situations where we just have to agree to assume. If you read 14 and 36, you’ll find some of the core assumptions that go into this letter (both interesting ideas and the same authors so you can understand why they’d continue). An assumption Faisal makes is the rejection of objective observability which is one of those things you either believe or don’t believe. It’s analogous to the axiom of choice in that it could be contested but could be generally accepted.

Actually, F_QG is itself an assumption which isn’t backed up. See the paragraph before the one you quote when defining it. The beauty of axioms is that we can assume whatever we want but we need to either show nothing goes underneath it (eg Peano axioms) or have a very compelling case to make them (eg non-Euclidean geometry like parallel lines meet at infinity). This is a metasumary of some similar research at best. It’s not a proof in the way you think it is. Just because you don’t understand what you’re responding to doesn’t mean you’re right.

Yeah, the opening of the second paragraph on the page marked twelve basically says “we don’t have a true theory so we look at some proposals.” If anything, all it’s shown is that these specific proposals fall prey to the normal inability of mathematical systems to fully describe themselves, not that quantum gravity actively disproves a simulation. Everything after that might be sound if we trace all the sources. Nothing stood out as implausible or anything beyond some logical leaping. There was nothing that showed adding more to the system won’t fix the issues, which is the whole point of things like the updates their choice of set theory added to ZFC.

1. This is actually a privacy problem. If any company can access the live feed, it opens up serious surveillance issues. Granted, we have to trust Apple won’t surveil…
2. I agree
3. This has more to do with content moderation than prudishness. If you’re being held accountable for what kids can access on your platform, you take a very draconian approach. Granted, no one is yelling at Dell for allowing Steam to install porn games…

Your response seems very enterprise-focused. I think you might be missing the kind of software development that happens before it becomes enterprise. All of these metrics are very reasonable for new products, startups, consulting, and hobby hackers. If code were moving 10X now, we should reasonably see 10X new growth. These numbers show we’re not.

Arguably we should also see a 10X something in legacy and enterprise as well which is harder to measure. If we assume a 10X dev is producing 10X more code, we should expect 10X more bugs so we should also see a rise in QA positions. We’re not, so that’s a good indicator. We should also see a rise in product manager roles to handle teams that are suddenly producing 10X per member. We’re not, so that’s a good indicator. We should also see 10X new product deliveries from companies like Salesforce. We’re not, so that’s a good indicator.

You completely missed the sections on how long these tools have been available. Your point about the internet would be valid if this article was written in, say, 2021 when Copilot and Tabnine were new and hot. It would also have maybe been valid in early 2023 when people were first spinning up workflows off ChatGPT and making 10X promises. It’s now years later and we’re not seeing any growth in any of those numbers as illustrated by the article.

Don’t forget the ability of major actors to rewrite history, making these blockchains incredibly centralized and absolutely mutable. If someone with enough clout decides to roll something back, it happens.

California is not Colorado nor is it federal. I don’t think you understand the things you’re saying since you don’t seem to grasp, as you put it, the regulations are “often state-specific.” You linked California, not Colorado, which this article is in reference to. Even in the beginning, you didn’t seem to grasp why regulation and some level of understanding about what people should or shouldn’t do is reasonable to have defined. Good luck!

In the US? I’m gonna need to see some statutes there bud. Last I checked there are no federal requirements and as far as I can tell there are only insurance requirements in Colorado at the moment.

1. What about ride share companies that aren’t Uber or Lyft that don’t have safety programs?
2. What requirement do Uber or Lyft have to maintain good safety after, say, they own the market?

Your last sentence is somewhat naive. It can often place the onus on the wrong group. People don’t want to engage with the XLibre dude with open minds and empathy any more because back when they did, he didn’t engage with an open mind or empathy. You can only do that for so long before you have to isolate and protect. Quarantine, deplatforming, and isolation works when someone refuses to engage. At some point you have to be intolerant of intolerance if you want to get anything done.

Scope some literature on deradicalization. There is only so much empathy you can give someone who thinks an entire group of people don’t deserve to be human and, more importantly, there has to be a cutoff when you’re not getting empathy back. You’re right, empathy and an attempt to understand is important. Don’t forget many people in marginalized or attacked groups have to defend their existence every single fucking day so sometimes their empathy is pretty drained.

I must be pulling a red herring then

A point I haven’t seen yet is just general eugenics. I know OP says “no appearance or mind” but genetic diseases directly affect those. Take deafness, for example. It can be genetic and therefore could be “fixed.” The deaf community would be fucking furious (cochlear implants can be incredibly controversial). Blindness can also be genetic. Cleft lips and club feet can be genetic (or influenced by) and they can be really gnarly so why wouldn’t we fix those? And since we’re fixing things, why not fix autism and Down’s syndrome (I know we said no mind but those are truly game changers!) and oh shit now we’re in Gattaca. Eugenics is bad. I won’t fully commit to a slippery slope because that’s a fallacy; I will say very convincing science fiction has been written about this and I have seen nothing under capitalism (or communism!) that convinces me that wouldn’t happen.

See‽ Easy explanation. I get it, absolutely reasonable issues, and one of several areas Linux just isn’t great with. “Too many issues to explain here” doesn’t click with me.

This rings a little hollow to me. Most of the people I know that understand Linux can quickly summarize why they might not use it as their daily driver (eg staying on macOS for graphics/video or staying on Windows for desktop Word/Excel). If you can summarize that quickly, it really makes me wonder if you really understand it. I’m not trying to No True Scotsman my way around it; I really don’t understand.

You’re looking for something like Nightshade. The chuds into accelerating the rapid destruction of all energy resources are aware and capable of defending so it’s not as solid. I don’t know if image datasets are scraped or manually compiled so YMMV; I do know the more poison you throw out the better.

This reminds me a lot of LogLog Games doing the same thing this time last year. It also talks about similar issues and goes pretty deep into normal Rust responses.

There are maybe three sentences worth of content.

Wrapped.

In stutters.

That make.

It.

Super hard.

To read.

It drives me nuts on LinkedIn; it’s sad to see it’s made the jump to “longform” on substack.

Advanced tech? What advanced tech? People watching you on cameras? The highest rate of wake word false positives? Something else I’m too dumb to understand?

While I personally think a removal of encryption tends be on the other side of this conflict, I have been called a nonce several times by otherwise leftist folks because of my support for strong encryption(ie the only people who want encryption have something to hide ergo you’re a nonce). This is all anecdote so YMMV.

Jokes aside this is fucking rad and a continuation of great things from them. I really dread the day iFixit enshittifies.