This argument is even worse, since it depends on assuming things exist (i.e., futuristic civilizations running simulations) that we have NO evidence of.
On the contrary, we know of an advanced civilization running millions of simulations. Our own. There's no reason to believe we will stop, or that the simulations won't become more advanced over time.
Could be. Nick Boström is the founding director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford - a well renowned philosopher with a solid base in logic:
He holds a B.A. in philosophy, mathematics, logic and artificial intelligence from the University of Gothenburg and master's degrees in philosophy and physics, and computational neuroscience from Stockholm University and King's College London, respectively. [Wikipedia]...and you?
Actually, no, neither of those are arguments against Boström's logic. We only require one single civilisation (of which we know for a fact that there's at least one) for it to become statistically likely that you and I are living in a simulation.
If there are more that statistics become even more overwhelming. And there's no need for any travel.
The argument is of course not Musk's, but Nick Boström's:
ABSTRACT. This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.
To find the plastic-eating bacterium described in the study, the Japanese research team from Kyoto Institute of Technology and Keio University collected 250 PET-contaminated samples including sediment, soil and wastewater from a plastic bottle recycling site. Next they screened the microbes living on the samples to see whether any of them were eating the PET and using it to grow. They originally found a consortium of bugs that appeared to break down a PET film, but they eventually discovered that just one of bacteria species was responsible for the PET degradation. They named it Ideonella sakainesis. Further tests in the lab revealed that it used two enzymes to break down the PET. After adhering to the PET surface, the bacteria secretes one enzyme onto the PET to generate an intermediate chemical. That chemical is then taken up by the cell, where another enzyme breaks it down even further, providing the bacteria with carbon and energy to grow.
Why would anyone spend hashing efforts on those blockchains? And if you "solve" the need for hashing by making the blockchain private within a group of companies, where you expect none of them to attack the blockchains integrity, then your product is no different from having a MySQL database with restricted login...
The reason Bitcoin exists is that they're the tokens distributed to make people spend efforts on hashing the blockchain. Without tokens you have no hashing. A blockchain thus cannot exist without a currency (defined as the value of those tokens).
There have been several glacial/interglacial periods over the last 120,000 years.
No. Since the last interglacial 120000 years ago (the Eemian, warmer than the current) and the one we're living in (the Holocene) there has only been a glacial period (cold... ).
It seems the paper thus says that our current interglacial is the warmest interglacial since the last interglacial. That seems very uncontroversial.
Regarding the XKCD graph it's contradicted by its own source. The graph claims to use Marcott et. al 2013 as a source (see top right). Now, study the graph carefully. Then read the following from Marcott et.al 2013 (the abstract, even):
"Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history."
With Qwant I'm ok for 95% of my searches. With DuckDuckGo I got relevant results at a maximum of 5% of the time... and I really tried. It was my default search engine for a full year - now replaced with Qwant.
While true, I consider this to be more important compared to Google:
"Qwant's philosophy is based on two principles: no user tracking and no filter bubble. We do our best to respect the privacy of our online visitors while ensuring a secure environment and relevant results."
I switched to https://qwant.com/ a few months ago. Works fine for ~95% of all searches I do. The other 5% I manually route via Google's more advanced filtering.
You probably have a friend with a similar question. The solution is that you buy a backup disk the size you need, they buy a backup disk the size they need, you both install it at the others place and then you run Crashplan between yourselves. That gives you off site version controlled backups.
Also inserting reality should ne done wilth cameras and not via clear lenses like Google Glass
Lag is the reason why inserting via cameras, processing, then displaying fails. We humans aren't really good at tens of milliseconds of disconnect from what our senses tell us and what we see.
Clear lenses (like Sony SmartEyeglass, in front of your eyes, unlike Google Glass) has zero lag on real world content (of course).
I'm not responsible for any of the straw men you created. If you want to read the papers on systemic errors (I linked one) you're of course free to do so.
No, if the errors are systemic they can absolutely change the trend. Not only within a measurement system (human readers rounding to nearest half degree) but most definitely when you switch measurement devices (bucket intake on ships).
Most research in the world would benefit from having professional statisticians help out with the statistics. It's simply quite hard to get right. One principle that is never used as it should is the Bonferroni correction.
Remember this is the warmest month ever recorded, which makes it the warmest month since the last Ice Age (we passed the historic peak since the last Ice Age a decade or more ago). And that makes it the warmest month in the last 100,000 years.
Uh, no. Where did you get that from? "recorded" goes back to the mid/end of the 19th century - not further.
It was warmer than today for thousands of years during this interglacial (~8000 years ago) - known as the Holocene Optimum. In some parts, like anthrax-ridden Siberia, it was up to 9 degrees warmer than today.
(Yes, I can link the actual papers if you really don't believe it - but it's not difficult to put the keywords into a search engine)
I'm not sure what you reacted to in the parent post, but Sahara indeed used to be a Savannah just a few thousand years ago: http://www.livescience.com/418...
"the evidence strongly suggests that fraud is the likely explanation. These problems have been occurring since at least 2004, and are certainly present in the current 2016 presidential primaries.
The documentation consists of statistical graphs analyzing data from five presidential cycles, as well as off-year races from across the country. The data illustrates that there are unusually large discrepancies between small precinct and large precinct election returns, and noticeable differences between hand-counted and machine-counted precinct results. Even in isolation, the data gives cause for concern. Thestatistical evidence is reinforced by physical evidence and congressional hearings: manual recounts that do not match the totals of the machines being audited; and testimony under oath about direct knowledge of tampering with electronic voting equipment."
What has you buying a mining rig with the intention to make a profit to do with Bitcoin? You're claiming that the former proves the latter is a "scam".
Obviously some people are indeed "mining" (the better term is "verifying transactions on the Bitcoin network") for a profit. And a user of Bitcoin need not care about "mining".
Slashdot Mirror
This argument is even worse, since it depends on assuming things exist (i.e., futuristic civilizations running simulations) that we have NO evidence of.
On the contrary, we know of an advanced civilization running millions of simulations. Our own. There's no reason to believe we will stop, or that the simulations won't become more advanced over time.
Could be. Nick Boström is the founding director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford - a well renowned philosopher with a solid base in logic:
He holds a B.A. in philosophy, mathematics, logic and artificial intelligence from the University of Gothenburg and master's degrees in philosophy and physics, and computational neuroscience from Stockholm University and King's College London, respectively. [Wikipedia] ...and you?
Actually, no, neither of those are arguments against Boström's logic. We only require one single civilisation (of which we know for a fact that there's at least one) for it to become statistically likely that you and I are living in a simulation.
If there are more that statistics become even more overwhelming. And there's no need for any travel.
The argument is of course not Musk's, but Nick Boström's:
ABSTRACT. This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.
http://www.simulation-argument...
I cannot find any flaws in the statistics. I thus agree we're _likely_ living in a simulation.
To find the plastic-eating bacterium described in the study, the Japanese research team from Kyoto Institute of Technology and Keio University collected 250 PET-contaminated samples including sediment, soil and wastewater from a plastic bottle recycling site.
Next they screened the microbes living on the samples to see whether any of them were eating the PET and using it to grow. They originally found a consortium of bugs that appeared to break down a PET film, but they eventually discovered that just one of bacteria species was responsible for the PET degradation. They named it Ideonella sakainesis.
Further tests in the lab revealed that it used two enzymes to break down the PET. After adhering to the PET surface, the bacteria secretes one enzyme onto the PET to generate an intermediate chemical. That chemical is then taken up by the cell, where another enzyme breaks it down even further, providing the bacteria with carbon and energy to grow.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-03-n...
http://phys.org/news/2016-03-n...
Why would anyone spend hashing efforts on those blockchains? And if you "solve" the need for hashing by making the blockchain private within a group of companies, where you expect none of them to attack the blockchains integrity, then your product is no different from having a MySQL database with restricted login ...
The reason Bitcoin exists is that they're the tokens distributed to make people spend efforts on hashing the blockchain. Without tokens you have no hashing. A blockchain thus cannot exist without a currency (defined as the value of those tokens).
There have been several glacial/interglacial periods over the last 120,000 years.
No. Since the last interglacial 120000 years ago (the Eemian, warmer than the current) and the one we're living in (the Holocene) there has only been a glacial period (cold ... ).
It seems the paper thus says that our current interglacial is the warmest interglacial since the last interglacial. That seems very uncontroversial.
Regarding the XKCD graph it's contradicted by its own source. The graph claims to use Marcott et. al 2013 as a source (see top right). Now, study the graph carefully. Then read the following from Marcott et.al 2013 (the abstract, even):
"Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history."
Now study the XKCD graph again.
With Qwant I'm ok for 95% of my searches. With DuckDuckGo I got relevant results at a maximum of 5% of the time ... and I really tried. It was my default search engine for a full year - now replaced with Qwant.
You should absolutely try it.
While true, I consider this to be more important compared to Google:
"Qwant's philosophy is based on two principles: no user tracking and no filter bubble.
We do our best to respect the privacy of our online visitors while ensuring a secure environment and relevant results."
I switched to https://qwant.com/ a few months ago. Works fine for ~95% of all searches I do. The other 5% I manually route via Google's more advanced filtering.
You probably have a friend with a similar question. The solution is that you buy a backup disk the size you need, they buy a backup disk the size they need, you both install it at the others place and then you run Crashplan between yourselves. That gives you off site version controlled backups.
Done.
(Haven't we been through this before?)
Not if the bias is systemic. It often is. There are lots of papers on the subject.
Also inserting reality should ne done wilth cameras and not via clear lenses like Google Glass
Lag is the reason why inserting via cameras, processing, then displaying fails. We humans aren't really good at tens of milliseconds of disconnect from what our senses tell us and what we see.
Clear lenses (like Sony SmartEyeglass, in front of your eyes, unlike Google Glass) has zero lag on real world content (of course).
I'm not responsible for any of the straw men you created. If you want to read the papers on systemic errors (I linked one) you're of course free to do so.
No, if the errors are systemic they can absolutely change the trend. Not only within a measurement system (human readers rounding to nearest half degree) but most definitely when you switch measurement devices (bucket intake on ships).
Most research in the world would benefit from having professional statisticians help out with the statistics. It's simply quite hard to get right. One principle that is never used as it should is the Bonferroni correction.
Not if the errors are systematic. And they often are.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
Remember this is the warmest month ever recorded, which makes it the warmest month since the last Ice Age (we passed the historic peak since the last Ice Age a decade or more ago). And that makes it the warmest month in the last 100,000 years.
Uh, no. Where did you get that from? "recorded" goes back to the mid/end of the 19th century - not further.
It was warmer than today for thousands of years during this interglacial (~8000 years ago) - known as the Holocene Optimum. In some parts, like anthrax-ridden Siberia, it was up to 9 degrees warmer than today.
(Yes, I can link the actual papers if you really don't believe it - but it's not difficult to put the keywords into a search engine)
People who don't understand encryption thinks it's a bad thing.
People who understand encryption shrug their shoulders. I don't care the slightest where my encrypted blobs of data end up.
I don't know what the OP thinks, but I don't read the post that way.
I'm not sure what you reacted to in the parent post, but Sahara indeed used to be a Savannah just a few thousand years ago: http://www.livescience.com/418...
Unprecedented stuff happens all the time.
"the evidence strongly suggests that fraud is the likely explanation. These problems have been occurring since at least 2004, and are certainly present in the current 2016 presidential primaries.
The documentation consists of statistical graphs analyzing data from five presidential cycles, as well as off-year races from across the country. The data illustrates that there are unusually large discrepancies between small precinct and large precinct election returns, and noticeable differences between hand-counted and machine-counted precinct results. Even in isolation, the data gives cause for concern. Thestatistical evidence is reinforced by physical evidence and congressional hearings: manual recounts that do not match the totals of the machines being audited; and testimony under oath about direct knowledge of tampering with electronic voting equipment."
http://static1.squarespace.com...
Because Ethereum's PoW oh wait PoS oh wait but maybe is a joke?
it's very, very obvious that the currency exists solely for the benefit of the companies that produce the ASICs
It's very, very obvious that it isn't since for many years Bitcoin proponents didn't even believe there would be ASIC rigs built.
What has you buying a mining rig with the intention to make a profit to do with Bitcoin? You're claiming that the former proves the latter is a "scam".
Obviously some people are indeed "mining" (the better term is "verifying transactions on the Bitcoin network") for a profit. And a user of Bitcoin need not care about "mining".
"Password, File, Image, Bookmark, Text" are the options I get when I want to create a new note. The formatting is Markdown.