What do you think of epicycles? Don't they predict well enough? Isn't it just new-age bullshit and bafflegab to say the earth moves around the sun, when you can look up in the sky and see with your own eyes the sun moving? The logic is unassailable!
If you write a program, you have certain expectations about the hardware that executes it. Isn't that information? You write a program, you can predict what it will do when run. If that doesn't fit the physics definition of information, then the physics definition is not very expressive.
Alice has a particle entangled with Bob's. Alice measures hers. She now knows, immediately, what Bob will see when he measures his. She can prepare accordingly.
If Alice knows Bob will launch a missile, say, when he measures a 1, Alice can prepare for the missile launch as soon as she measures her particle. There may be some uncertainty, but it is less than if there weren't any shared entangled particles. Information has been gained, faster than the speed of light.
If physics defines that gain away, it fails to describe nature very well.
Once you measure your particle, you know what the other side will see. That is information. You can predict their reaction, and prepare your own actions accordingly. You know more, instantaneously, about something happening far away (potentially). Information entropy has been reduced, faster than the speed of light would otherwise allow.
"The opposite is true. Because the natural abuser is inclined to fight through any system thrown at them, throttling and other attempts drain their energy more than simply letting them post would, leading to more relaxed (or at least less) behavior offline.
Not to mention, we all know that trolls online are probably losers who would never in a billion years have the nerve to say or do anything offensive offline..."
Yeah, but I have personal experience with censorship leading to depression. After being banned from some chatroom or forum, I feel something has been taken away, not because of any scarcity of resources (though that is often presented as an excuse), but rather because some self-styled memetic power brokers decided to come down hard on some types of speech they had a personal problem with.
I felt less depressed, when I could vent online about what was making me depressed.
Let's work on smart filters. How difficult can it be, to use big data to infer which posts you will probably want to see? If this company doesn't want to do it, their loss. Ultimate freedom for all, simultaneously, without affecting anyone else who doesn't choose to be affected, is the promise of technology. Market pressures are throttling progress towards that goal.
But this is billed as "the largest psychology lab". How likely do you think the findings about censorship are likely to be applied in other contexts, by government even?
It's the forcing that's the issue for me. Try with words, not bans or throttling. Or if your words aren't good enough, just/ignore them.
The implications of this story go beyond the mechanics of the particular game involved. It's branded as a psychological study; you don't think people will try to use the conclusions in other social media settings?
What if they were having fun trolling online, and the only harm done was a few thin-skinned squares had to type/ignore? What if they could vent against bullying without any consequences, like being called "toxic"?
Why wouldn't they want to implement an "all things to all people" approach, where you could experience only the chat you wanted to see, while they could still rant? Isn't this really about imposing personal taste on others?
Why can't devs who care implement filters for clients, so each person gets a custom view, and no one is censored? Is it too hard, or is this a political control thing?
Well I can set my filter to -1, and hide the moderation scores, even though it doesn't work too well: for example, a post above that was rated -1 (as a response to it noted) was not fully displayed; I had to click on it to read it. I wish slashdot would fix that bug so when I tell it I want unfiltered comments with no moderation scores, I can see everything.
BTW I lost my mod privileges here over a decade ago, after I upvoted this comment.
Back in the good ol' days on freenode, there was a #politics which had a no kick/ban policy, and a ##politics which was like every other irc channel, with active mods. Guess which was more popular? The little girls who run freenode became so jealous of the fun we had in #politics that they had to shut it down.
I loved the freedom of the old #politics, under aksis who set up the no kick/ban policy. I would argue with the bigots and racists and other trolls. I could make them shut up or leave, just with words, maybe half the time?
The way to deal with toxic memes is to come up with better memes to fight them. Censorship leads to supertoxicity, which comes out in other ways (real-life violence, other forums).
Besides, technology provides the solution to this particular social problem:/ignore. Filter speech at your client; don't restrain free speech.
Why can't you just use an/ignore function? Why impose your idea of what is abusive on everyone else? We have the technology to implement censorship at the client, without forcing prior restraint upon anyone.
Why not let abuse take place online in virtual environments? Instead, this psychology of banning and throttling likely leads to more offline abusive real-life suffering.
If terrorists spent all their time flaming on message boards, wouldn't it be better than if they were banned and decided to go out and do some real violence?
But they don't have to break the spirit of the laws against unreasonable search and seizure, they shouldn't profile, and they shouldn't selectively enforce (HSBC money-laundered drug money, they were slapped on the wrist).
I'm reminded of the Dave Chappelle sketch about what would happen if drug dealers were treated like Wall Street criminals. Tron, testifying before Congress, takes the "fizzith" amendment to every question and gets off scot-free.
I think the point is that all the ppl today saying "nothing to see here" have the same mindset as Shapley about distant galaxies: If there are other galaxies like our Milky Way, that would contradict everything we know today, reasoned astronomers a century ago. So there must not be distant galaxies. QED. Nothing to see here!
Aristarchus of Samos ran into much the same prejudice. If Aristarchus's heliocentric theory of the solar system is correct, reasoned the Greeks, we should observe parallax motion of the stars. We don't observe parallax motion of the stars. Therefore, the earth does not move around the sun. Nothing to see here! Except their instruments weren't sensitive enough to measure the parallax motion, because the stars were so much farther away than they could imagine.
In the same way today we see huge bursts of energy that astronmers just can't stomach, so they invent theories about beaming and so forth. Nothing to see here! Energy is still scarce! We can still use scarcity as an excuse to make poor people suffer, because the stars say so.
Nah man Bellevue is a miasma of rich old fucks who have nothing better to do than whine about their really really small problems and illnesses for which they are way overtreated because they have so much fucking money. Fucking Bill fucking Gates lives in Bellevue (Medina). Fuck those fucks. The Bellevue Fucking Library has security guards that go around and kick the legs of chairs, if someone's sleeping in them. Fuck that homeless-phobia.
Slashdot Mirror
Information creates what we call matter and energy out of nothing.
If information is outside matter and energy, information how to process information (i.e. intelligence) can also be outside of matter and energy.
What do you think of epicycles? Don't they predict well enough? Isn't it just new-age bullshit and bafflegab to say the earth moves around the sun, when you can look up in the sky and see with your own eyes the sun moving? The logic is unassailable!
Norbert Wiener?
"Information is information, not matter or energy."
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/wiener/
Even if the interpretation isn't true, we can program it.
We can program multiple virtual universes, or a universe where I can go back in time and there's a fork.
If we think it, it is true. We can make it true if it isn't already.
If you write a program, you have certain expectations about the hardware that executes it. Isn't that information? You write a program, you can predict what it will do when run. If that doesn't fit the physics definition of information, then the physics definition is not very expressive.
Alice has a particle entangled with Bob's. Alice measures hers. She now knows, immediately, what Bob will see when he measures his. She can prepare accordingly.
If Alice knows Bob will launch a missile, say, when he measures a 1, Alice can prepare for the missile launch as soon as she measures her particle. There may be some uncertainty, but it is less than if there weren't any shared entangled particles. Information has been gained, faster than the speed of light.
If physics defines that gain away, it fails to describe nature very well.
Andrew Cleland and Aaron O'Connell have demonstrated macroscopic quantum behavior: http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~m...
Yves Couder et al. have demonstrated Single-Particle Diffraction and Interference at a Macroscopic Scale.
Once you measure your particle, you know what the other side will see. That is information. You can predict their reaction, and prepare your own actions accordingly. You know more, instantaneously, about something happening far away (potentially). Information entropy has been reduced, faster than the speed of light would otherwise allow.
"The opposite is true. Because the natural abuser is inclined to fight through any system thrown at them, throttling and other attempts drain their energy more than simply letting them post would, leading to more relaxed (or at least less) behavior offline.
Not to mention, we all know that trolls online are probably losers who would never in a billion years have the nerve to say or do anything offensive offline..."
Yeah, but I have personal experience with censorship leading to depression. After being banned from some chatroom or forum, I feel something has been taken away, not because of any scarcity of resources (though that is often presented as an excuse), but rather because some self-styled memetic power brokers decided to come down hard on some types of speech they had a personal problem with.
I felt less depressed, when I could vent online about what was making me depressed.
Let's work on smart filters. How difficult can it be, to use big data to infer which posts you will probably want to see? If this company doesn't want to do it, their loss. Ultimate freedom for all, simultaneously, without affecting anyone else who doesn't choose to be affected, is the promise of technology. Market pressures are throttling progress towards that goal.
But this is billed as "the largest psychology lab". How likely do you think the findings about censorship are likely to be applied in other contexts, by government even?
The debt will be forgiven.
It's the forcing that's the issue for me. Try with words, not bans or throttling. Or if your words aren't good enough, just /ignore them.
The implications of this story go beyond the mechanics of the particular game involved. It's branded as a psychological study; you don't think people will try to use the conclusions in other social media settings?
What if they were having fun trolling online, and the only harm done was a few thin-skinned squares had to type /ignore? What if they could vent against bullying without any consequences, like being called "toxic"?
Why wouldn't they want to implement an "all things to all people" approach, where you could experience only the chat you wanted to see, while they could still rant? Isn't this really about imposing personal taste on others?
Why can't devs who care implement filters for clients, so each person gets a custom view, and no one is censored? Is it too hard, or is this a political control thing?
So do a real psychological study, not like this one which doesn't examine the potential ramifications of banning and throttling.
Well I can set my filter to -1, and hide the moderation scores, even though it doesn't work too well: for example, a post above that was rated -1 (as a response to it noted) was not fully displayed; I had to click on it to read it. I wish slashdot would fix that bug so when I tell it I want unfiltered comments with no moderation scores, I can see everything.
BTW I lost my mod privileges here over a decade ago, after I upvoted this comment.
Back in the good ol' days on freenode, there was a #politics which had a no kick/ban policy, and a ##politics which was like every other irc channel, with active mods. Guess which was more popular? The little girls who run freenode became so jealous of the fun we had in #politics that they had to shut it down.
I loved the freedom of the old #politics, under aksis who set up the no kick/ban policy. I would argue with the bigots and racists and other trolls. I could make them shut up or leave, just with words, maybe half the time?
The way to deal with toxic memes is to come up with better memes to fight them. Censorship leads to supertoxicity, which comes out in other ways (real-life violence, other forums).
Besides, technology provides the solution to this particular social problem: /ignore. Filter speech at your client; don't restrain free speech.
Why can't you just use an /ignore function? Why impose your idea of what is abusive on everyone else? We have the technology to implement censorship at the client, without forcing prior restraint upon anyone.
Why not let abuse take place online in virtual environments? Instead, this psychology of banning and throttling likely leads to more offline abusive real-life suffering.
If terrorists spent all their time flaming on message boards, wouldn't it be better than if they were banned and decided to go out and do some real violence?
But they don't have to break the spirit of the laws against unreasonable search and seizure, they shouldn't profile, and they shouldn't selectively enforce (HSBC money-laundered drug money, they were slapped on the wrist).
I'm reminded of the Dave Chappelle sketch about what would happen if drug dealers were treated like Wall Street criminals. Tron, testifying before Congress, takes the "fizzith" amendment to every question and gets off scot-free.
I think the point is that all the ppl today saying "nothing to see here" have the same mindset as Shapley about distant galaxies: If there are other galaxies like our Milky Way, that would contradict everything we know today, reasoned astronomers a century ago. So there must not be distant galaxies. QED. Nothing to see here!
Aristarchus of Samos ran into much the same prejudice. If Aristarchus's heliocentric theory of the solar system is correct, reasoned the Greeks, we should observe parallax motion of the stars. We don't observe parallax motion of the stars. Therefore, the earth does not move around the sun. Nothing to see here! Except their instruments weren't sensitive enough to measure the parallax motion, because the stars were so much farther away than they could imagine.
In the same way today we see huge bursts of energy that astronmers just can't stomach, so they invent theories about beaming and so forth. Nothing to see here! Energy is still scarce! We can still use scarcity as an excuse to make poor people suffer, because the stars say so.
My experience is different. I remember under a bridge, downtown, offering an addict a full syringe, and he only took a little.
No one's forcing you to shoot up. Why are you generalizing your experience to me? Your mileage may vary.
Nah man Bellevue is a miasma of rich old fucks who have nothing better to do than whine about their really really small problems and illnesses for which they are way overtreated because they have so much fucking money. Fucking Bill fucking Gates lives in Bellevue (Medina). Fuck those fucks. The Bellevue Fucking Library has security guards that go around and kick the legs of chairs, if someone's sleeping in them. Fuck that homeless-phobia.