I think you might be vastly overcomplicating it because I didn't think there had to be any sort of "conservation of branching" in the MWI. each nondeterministic event (of which unfathomable quantities take place every moment) generates an infinite number of branches so to even conceive of the total geometry of all the branching (e.g. all that could ever take place, truly) is a bit of a mindfuck, and that's probably okay and the way it was intended. It's supposed to be comforting to know that regardless of how bad reality seems, if we could navigate arbitrarily through the branching space/time/universes then there would be unimaginable infinities of joyful utopias to visit.
could you elaborate slightly on what is meant by ancestor simulation? My best stab is that you're saying we're the unknowing entities that they created for fun to get to meet or observe their own ancestors? This still seems far fetched.
The advanced hyperintelligence that descends from us wants to learn about its past, build an interesting tech demo, or perhaps experience it. It creates an advanced simulation of the past using its unimaginable technology. It's able to recreate the past and populate it with realistic people with such fidelity that the simulated people have no idea that they're in a simulation. They're thinking, living, and breathing just like us -- completely indistinguishable.
Perhaps the fidelity and technology is even beyond our reasoning. Perhaps the future is able to bend physics and capture the past light cone. It may be able to perfectly simulate the past as it happened, down to every neurotransmitter fired by every brain at every second. Every event, every thought, every emotion. Perhaps it is pulling beings out of the past and placing them into its simulation with 100% fidelity such that you couldn't tell the two apart if you wanted.
What is it about understanding the universe that makes it such an axiomatic global objective? Sure for many of us myself included it's as all pervasive as the air we breathe... But sometimes I do wonder if it is actually all that correlated with my well-being.
Security is one area in which you can't really afford not to go down the tin foil hat rabbit hole. It's been like this for some time, where it's not really possible to know just how much capability is possessed by nation state actors, but with AI and other tools those capabilities will expand and become the baseline probably way sooner than we predict. No longer will experts be needed to do careful tracing to deanonymize, one of the true superpowers of AI will be its ability to extract the full power out of the big data we've been collecting. So the cost then of figuring something out that now might cost millions will soon cost a couple bucks.
It's relatively fast (probably could be faster than NVMe if optimized, i did not rtfm) and it is available. it's not the most horrible of ideas. I am fairly fairly certain lots of applications will load assets into vram and then evict them from system memory. Why not leverage this for general purpose use if it makes sense (after taking into account the security implications of course)?
This article started off really clear and straightforward, then it dove into stuff that I clearly wasn't going to be able to follow, and upon skipping it I arrived at the explanation which was was plainly obvious from common sense.
>such a number is often dutifully provided to such journalists, who in turn report it as some sort of quantitative demonstration of how remarkable the event was.
Apparently the conclusions are not common sense if you are a journalist.
Common sense can mislead, so it's instructive to make it rigorous to see whether it does indeed hold up. Not for everything or even most things, otherwise you'd be analysis paralysis sets in.
He also used common sense to determine he had no way of determining the probability of a rigged event. And therefore using Bayesian probability looked fancy but didn't help learn anything new. I remember reading first paragraph and thinking wow, bayesian has a way of helping determining the odds of that, but no.
Either he wanted to educate or is so involved with statistics that it became his default way of framing problems.
We "bought" a Samsung fridge last black friday. Something extraordinary happened. Their system failed to deliver us the fridge. We had to reschedule the delivery since we were staying at the parents' for Thanksgiving a few extra days. It just never got delivered. It seemed like it was XPO's screwup, but it was hilarious to me that they could not get their system working well enough to even get the fridge to show up at our house.
Now you got me thinking about one thing in particular.
Suppose we will have quite soon portable and discreet technology that can, through monitoring your BAC, or what have you, warn you that you're about to be overly drunk. It would stand to reason that for many folks out there who have An Alcohol Problem that technology like this could materially enhance their lives. Now that I think of this, something like this could even become the first practical widespread form of cybernetic enhancement, not that we don't already have plenty of awesome ones in the form of prostheses.
Just makes me wonder what kind of hurdles a company developing such a product would face.
I think it could actually be a pretty good strategy to optimize your job search for the degree to which you might be able to go rogue and get away with it.
I am pretty up front about being chaotic good and seeing that historically I add a ton of value when I am given some free rein to fix things or just make some (or a bunch of people's) lives easier, I often seek forgiveness rather than permission but - I am also willing to accept push back (always a hey, this fixes this and that, what do people think? not a "I made the terrible code perfect and you must accept this), I try to be clear about where my time is going is my own assigned work is going slower, not usually because I'm off over-engineering some internal tool. but because when you get a reputation as someone that can help people fix things, lots of your time is about unblocking others cause they trust that they can come to you (which levels the whole team up, but sometimes means individual commitments fall behind), and I am try to push for the whole team to have less fear and more freedom to have a day a month where they just work on whatever tech debt they want, or throw up a quick PR for discussion about something they see, etc etc. And I'm also clear that if the org doesn't see value in what I'm doing, that's their call to make, because I also know I can find one that will.
But in my experience the devs that want to /optimize/ for going rogue, are the ones you least want re-engineering your entire auth system overnight with code no one else understands and/or the most abrasive when it comes to arguing about why they are right. It's a gentle balance and being honest, kind, and collaborative goes pretty far....
I've not used it for a few months, but I installed from homebrew as well.
Run `arch` in a terminal. Does it return `arm64`?
Interestingly, I just opened Alacritty on my M1, and it's showing `arm64` now. I know it didn't before. The app has been upgraded because macOS's security tools blocked it when I tried to open it and I had to explicitly allow it.
Maybe it was an issue that they've fixed since I last looked?
