I've biked quite a few places around the weather doesn't seem to stop many downtown Chicago bike riders, unless the snow hasn't yet been plowed.
Laws don't seem to affect them either.. Nor do they seem to care about land direction, streets being one-way, active pedestrian cross walks, red lights, yields, stop signs, etc..
In the 12 years I've lived here and been daily in the downtown area, I've had far more occurrences of incident with a cyclist than with any other form of transport we have.
As someone that took the Blue Line for years. It's a horrid line. Delays. Broken a lot. Cars that have doors that don't open. Heat that doesn't work in winter. Cooling that doesn't work in summer. The smell from vagrants living on the train having not bathed in who knows how long. People using corners as bathrooms.
Sure it already makes the ORD to Downtown. But its pretty crappy of service.
Wile E. Coyote is actually a pretty diametral example. A lot of his failures were due to cartoon physics not being real physics. This joker here has it kinda backwards;).
Wile E actually believed in science.. He was just carrying it out poorly..
I think it is just another symptom of the dumbing down of the general population....
You're talking now about a significant number of the populace that can't read a book, even if it has pictures....and people you can ask "who won the civil war", and will either not know the answer, or answer "America?".
It's just been a steady downhill spiral with the common least denominator dropping at an alarming rate.
This guy not sure interrupted me while I was watching Ow, My Balls and that is not ok.
Nor should there be 1 picture per page for 25 pages and ignore that you're simply trying to generate more Ad Rev by making me click through page after page.
I've pretty much stopped reading articles once I see that mess.
Now that you mention it, I do remember such questions from a couple of lifetimes ago when I was applying for unskilled jobs. That was so long ago that I forgot. Those questions stopped when I started in engineering, though.
Wow.....
Ok, so Yeah, I've also been in similar gigs for 17 years now and pretty much every single new job I take asks about my formers.
We should be horrified at mass shootings like the Las Vegas massacre and many of the other gruesome attacks that have taken place in recent years. First person shooters provide a training ground for violent people to act out their rage, practice their tactics, and obtained pleasure from killing. Over time, that pleasure decreases from first person shooters, and the most violent types move on to acting them out on real people. First person shooters should be banned because they lead to violence in real life. Activision's patents should be useless because they're built around dangerous games that need to be outlawed for the good of society.
You're trolling too hard.
I've been playing FPS for as long as they've been around and I've killed all of 0 people. I've shot all of 0 people. I own 0 firearms and I'm even from the state of Texas... (however, I am a rather good shot with real firearms -- so my lack of owning any is just that.. I don't own any).
Many games have autonomous vehicles that drive on patrol, or ferry you around, or whatever. So it's quite doable, and by non AI experts at that. It's just a matter of transitioning from an artificial world to the real world but really that's a matter only of where the inputs are coming from. It's an engineering task and nothing more. But hey buy more NVIDIA stock.
You're f*cking kidding, right? Should not require that much? While we meatbags take for granted our ability to usually drive around in the real-world, it is an extremely complex task to do properly and to instruct a machine to perform to the same detail.
I'm sorry, but I'd rather not trust a game level AI to understand that the real world does indeed care about cliping, wall walking and texture convergence.
Yeah, thankfully, they didn't ruin themselves by getting overly techy and specific with things AND they kept the simulations to the at-then present and a known past, so there was nothing odd projected to come in to existence but never did.. So, surprisingly, it holds up well as it's more following the human nature and questions of reality than how exactly they went about making the simulations.. Other than, well, there's this big computer and this brain scanner thing.
I think I saw recently that some of the Ghost Limb issues can be addressed by the ways the nerves were severed. I can't recall the source now, so I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that the effect could be cured by trimming or modifying the damaged nerve endings, and they would stop reporting phantom limbs.
Not Ghost Limb. Ghost Hand... They're different issues. Ghost Hans is also known as Alien Hand Syndrome. Its' where a limb, usually your hand and arm seemingly are acting of their own will and not of your conscious control. It's usually a condition that people who have had certain trauma or hemi sphere separation experience due to the splitting of the parts of the mind from being as connected as they were.
Many of the pro-simulation arguments also depend on the hosts intentionally obfuscating the simulation's nature from humanity
How self-important of humanity to assume that if this were a simulation that WE are the purpose of the simulation. An impossibly large Universe and our galaxy is but a speck on it. Our solar system is but a speck on our galaxy. Our planet is but a speck in our solar system. Men are but specks on our planet... and some people think that if this is a simulation WE are the purpose of the simulation? How utterly "human".
No, if this is a simulation we are but a mere coincidence, we are not the main focus, and the people running the simulation probably isn't aware we exist. I doubt we live in a simulation... but if we do, I'm not egotistical enough to believe that this is all about me... or even my species.
Well, there is also partly a reason that we say We, Us, Humans, Humanity, etc. simply because we can't speak for any other form of life as we presently have no way of communicating with them on such a level that we could even hope to convey the most basic ideas involved in such a consideration, let along trying to understand the ultimate meaning behind such a thing.
Also, given that we have not shot anything in to space far enough to really scratch the surface. There is nothing truly tangible to state that there isn't a projection or memory wrap of some level that's creating things beyond a certain point. We've not discovered to this day any life outside of our planet, nor can we say w/o a doubt that aliens from another galaxy or even this one from a neighboring system have shown us that we're not alone.
It's not at all arrogant or egotistical to think "we" are the focus or that we're not at least important in such a thing given that we would understandably start with that which we know the best. That's us. Why would we start with Dogs or Cats or Whales? They're not the dominant life. They're not shaping the planet like we are. It's just meaningless nonsense to start thinking it's all for them.
Even if the point of this simulation was to see how Humans altered the life spans of other creatures and that we're nothing more than the lab simulated versions of a reality base pestilence, killing off billions of species, then we're still the focus. Someone or something is trying to duplicate, in a simulation, the pest known as Human and see how best to destroy us or remove our impact.
There is no viability to Pro or Con studies for this. We simply would not be capable of knowing if we're simulated as our own thought processes would in fact be governed by the same rules of the system we're attempting to prove or disprove.
What you're proposing is a philosophical proof, and it's not rigorous.
It turns out that we *can* prove or disprove certain statements about our universe. The fundamental fact (to prove, or disprove) is whether the universe is computable.
Computability has a couple of slightly different meanings in the literature depending on certain assumptions, but in general terms it means that the results of a computation can be done with a) a computer, b) using finite memory, and c) in a finite amount of time(*).
The Church-Turing thesis implies that all computers are equivalent, so the type of computer doesn't matter.
What *does* matter is the finite limits on time and memory. You can't use real (in the mathematical sense) numbers, because they take an infinite amount of memory to store, and would take an infinite amount of processing just to load one into a register. This implies that position, if your universe has this as a feature, must be quantized in some way. The amount of information in a particle's position must be finite. Time also has to be quantized.
If time and position are quantized, you might need some sort of "fuzzing" algorithm to avoid jaggies and other artifacts in your universe. Something like Bresenham's algorithm, or some other anti-aliasing method. Maybe use sines and cosines to represent the probability of a position between two quantized locations or something similar.
If we can identify an effect that the universe has that is non-computable, then we could (at that time) definitely state that the universe is not some sort of simulation.
That being said, I don't think this paper rules out computability per-se. The fact that complexity is exponential does not specifically rule out being computable, the thing about exponentiality comes from the post and not the abstract of the paper, the paper abstract itself states that the question is still open, and the paper is speculative and might be subject to re-interpretation or dispute by subsequent papers.
It's also really, really dense.
Whether the universe is computable is a really interesting question. Consider the resolution of the probability values of QM experiments; ie - is there a limit to the resolution one can have on a probability measurement? If it's a finite amount of information, it's kept in a finite number of bits, which means that it has a fundamental fractional resolution.
Is there an experiment that would show this fundamental resolution limit? (Do photons from distant galaxies arrive in tiny quantized angles, for instance?)
(*) With one possible exception, which is the overall program of the universe. The universe itself can run for infinite time, so long as each interaction can be computed in a finite amount of time. Basically, you can have exactly one while(1) in the main() of your universe, and all subroutines must return in a finite amount of time.
Why do you feel that our understanding of the length of a sequence of digits as infinite is truly how they are? If you exist as a 32bit representation and you have no ability to use address windowing or other similar technology, then your understanding of a 33bit or higher number becomes infinity as a consequence. As your existence has no physical ability to represent the true value of the number in question. You would have to make up a representation of an unfathomably large and unending number, like Infinity.
Also, you're still making the assumption of trying to disprove something whilst being inside of the same system. You could very well be programmed to run around in mindless loops or perceive things as infinities merely by design.
Slashdot Mirror
As someone that took the Blue Line for years. It's a horrid line. Delays. Broken a lot. Cars that have doors that don't open. Heat that doesn't work in winter. Cooling that doesn't work in summer. The smell from vagrants living on the train having not bathed in who knows how long. People using corners as bathrooms.
Sure it already makes the ORD to Downtown. But its pretty crappy of service.
Even if the competition makes the CTA suck less, I'm for it.
It's horrid taking the train from ORD to The Loop and back.
Wile E. Coyote is actually a pretty diametral example. A lot of his failures were due to cartoon physics not being real physics. This joker here has it kinda backwards ;).
Wile E actually believed in science.. He was just carrying it out poorly..
This joker doesn't even believe in science.
I can't.. I was going to quote some stuff and then comment on some other.. but, I can't..
Even Wile E Coyote wasn't that stupid.
Unlikely???
Given all the types out there that would absolutely abuse this, it's not unlikely. It's inevitable.
hes actually talking about the tv show from the 80's where the hero relives people's mistakes of the past.. and fix them
just like mozilla actually.
I'm aware, which is why I wrote me comment that way.. It's pretty much a rewording of the intro to the show....
The Quantum is the smallest possible increment. Always remember that when someone tells you it's a quantum leap in performance.
I'm more afraid this Quantum Leap will consist of reliving the past mistakes and horrors made by other people.
Mozilla is just trying to set right what once went wrong.. And hoping that their next version, will be the one home.
Anyone that exposes "very sensitive information" to the internet is a fool.
Period
End of Message
So, you don't use any online services at all?
No online banking?
No online payments?
No online shopping?
No online access to your health insurance?
etc.
Every single one of those can and does have very sensitive information in it or passing through it.
I think it is just another symptom of the dumbing down of the general population....
You're talking now about a significant number of the populace that can't read a book, even if it has pictures....and people you can ask "who won the civil war", and will either not know the answer, or answer "America?".
It's just been a steady downhill spiral with the common least denominator dropping at an alarming rate.
This guy not sure interrupted me while I was watching Ow, My Balls and that is not ok.
Nor should there be 1 picture per page for 25 pages and ignore that you're simply trying to generate more Ad Rev by making me click through page after page.
I've pretty much stopped reading articles once I see that mess.
Trump level stupid.
He has his name on buildings all over the USA.
He has millions of dollars to his name.
He's the president of the USA.
Trump level stupid doesn't seem all that bad.
You can think he's a sexist, a racist, a pig or just a bad president or even a lout mouth.. But, he's not stupid if he has all of that.
Now that you mention it, I do remember such questions from a couple of lifetimes ago when I was applying for unskilled jobs. That was so long ago that I forgot. Those questions stopped when I started in engineering, though.
Wow.....
Ok, so Yeah, I've also been in similar gigs for 17 years now and pretty much every single new job I take asks about my formers.
You're trolling too hard.
And you need to learn not to bite. The troll got modded into oblivion, but his efforts remain because you bit back.
Internet 101: Don't feed the trolls.
Don't even start with me on what I do and don't need to learn. I'm well past Internet 101.
We should be horrified at mass shootings like the Las Vegas massacre and many of the other gruesome attacks that have taken place in recent years. First person shooters provide a training ground for violent people to act out their rage, practice their tactics, and obtained pleasure from killing. Over time, that pleasure decreases from first person shooters, and the most violent types move on to acting them out on real people. First person shooters should be banned because they lead to violence in real life. Activision's patents should be useless because they're built around dangerous games that need to be outlawed for the good of society.
You're trolling too hard.
I've been playing FPS for as long as they've been around and I've killed all of 0 people. I've shot all of 0 people. I own 0 firearms and I'm even from the state of Texas... (however, I am a rather good shot with real firearms -- so my lack of owning any is just that.. I don't own any).
Many games have autonomous vehicles that drive on patrol, or ferry you around, or whatever. So it's quite doable, and by non AI experts at that. It's just a matter of transitioning from an artificial world to the real world but really that's a matter only of where the inputs are coming from. It's an engineering task and nothing more. But hey buy more NVIDIA stock.
You're f*cking kidding, right? Should not require that much? While we meatbags take for granted our ability to usually drive around in the real-world, it is an extremely complex task to do properly and to instruct a machine to perform to the same detail.
I'm sorry, but I'd rather not trust a game level AI to understand that the real world does indeed care about cliping, wall walking and texture convergence.
HAL!
I'm sorry AC. I'm afraid we can't do that.
Ask hipsters... They've figured it out.
Yeah, thankfully, they didn't ruin themselves by getting overly techy and specific with things AND they kept the simulations to the at-then present and a known past, so there was nothing odd projected to come in to existence but never did.. So, surprisingly, it holds up well as it's more following the human nature and questions of reality than how exactly they went about making the simulations.. Other than, well, there's this big computer and this brain scanner thing.
I think I saw recently that some of the Ghost Limb issues can be addressed by the ways the nerves were severed. I can't recall the source now, so I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that the effect could be cured by trimming or modifying the damaged nerve endings, and they would stop reporting phantom limbs.
Not Ghost Limb. Ghost Hand... They're different issues. Ghost Hans is also known as Alien Hand Syndrome. Its' where a limb, usually your hand and arm seemingly are acting of their own will and not of your conscious control. It's usually a condition that people who have had certain trauma or hemi sphere separation experience due to the splitting of the parts of the mind from being as connected as they were.
I remember seeing studies about this stuff when I was a kid.. Still creeps me out.
I own a 2017 ZL1 and a 2016 2SS. Neither is like that. In fact. My 17 ZL1 absolutely stomps 6 figure cars on the track.
Old gm, yes. My Gen4 and Gen5 FBody and Zeta platform Camaro were indeed poorly braked and rattle traps.
Many of the pro-simulation arguments also depend on the hosts intentionally obfuscating the simulation's nature from humanity
How self-important of humanity to assume that if this were a simulation that WE are the purpose of the simulation. An impossibly large Universe and our galaxy is but a speck on it. Our solar system is but a speck on our galaxy. Our planet is but a speck in our solar system. Men are but specks on our planet... and some people think that if this is a simulation WE are the purpose of the simulation? How utterly "human".
No, if this is a simulation we are but a mere coincidence, we are not the main focus, and the people running the simulation probably isn't aware we exist. I doubt we live in a simulation... but if we do, I'm not egotistical enough to believe that this is all about me... or even my species.
Well, there is also partly a reason that we say We, Us, Humans, Humanity, etc. simply because we can't speak for any other form of life as we presently have no way of communicating with them on such a level that we could even hope to convey the most basic ideas involved in such a consideration, let along trying to understand the ultimate meaning behind such a thing.
Also, given that we have not shot anything in to space far enough to really scratch the surface. There is nothing truly tangible to state that there isn't a projection or memory wrap of some level that's creating things beyond a certain point. We've not discovered to this day any life outside of our planet, nor can we say w/o a doubt that aliens from another galaxy or even this one from a neighboring system have shown us that we're not alone.
It's not at all arrogant or egotistical to think "we" are the focus or that we're not at least important in such a thing given that we would understandably start with that which we know the best. That's us. Why would we start with Dogs or Cats or Whales? They're not the dominant life. They're not shaping the planet like we are. It's just meaningless nonsense to start thinking it's all for them.
Even if the point of this simulation was to see how Humans altered the life spans of other creatures and that we're nothing more than the lab simulated versions of a reality base pestilence, killing off billions of species, then we're still the focus. Someone or something is trying to duplicate, in a simulation, the pest known as Human and see how best to destroy us or remove our impact.
So, no.. Not a hard stretch.
There is no viability to Pro or Con studies for this. We simply would not be capable of knowing if we're simulated as our own thought processes would in fact be governed by the same rules of the system we're attempting to prove or disprove.
What you're proposing is a philosophical proof, and it's not rigorous.
It turns out that we *can* prove or disprove certain statements about our universe. The fundamental fact (to prove, or disprove) is whether the universe is computable.
Computability has a couple of slightly different meanings in the literature depending on certain assumptions, but in general terms it means that the results of a computation can be done with a) a computer, b) using finite memory, and c) in a finite amount of time(*).
The Church-Turing thesis implies that all computers are equivalent, so the type of computer doesn't matter.
What *does* matter is the finite limits on time and memory. You can't use real (in the mathematical sense) numbers, because they take an infinite amount of memory to store, and would take an infinite amount of processing just to load one into a register. This implies that position, if your universe has this as a feature, must be quantized in some way. The amount of information in a particle's position must be finite. Time also has to be quantized.
If time and position are quantized, you might need some sort of "fuzzing" algorithm to avoid jaggies and other artifacts in your universe. Something like Bresenham's algorithm, or some other anti-aliasing method. Maybe use sines and cosines to represent the probability of a position between two quantized locations or something similar.
If we can identify an effect that the universe has that is non-computable, then we could (at that time) definitely state that the universe is not some sort of simulation.
That being said, I don't think this paper rules out computability per-se. The fact that complexity is exponential does not specifically rule out being computable, the thing about exponentiality comes from the post and not the abstract of the paper, the paper abstract itself states that the question is still open, and the paper is speculative and might be subject to re-interpretation or dispute by subsequent papers.
It's also really, really dense.
Whether the universe is computable is a really interesting question. Consider the resolution of the probability values of QM experiments; ie - is there a limit to the resolution one can have on a probability measurement? If it's a finite amount of information, it's kept in a finite number of bits, which means that it has a fundamental fractional resolution.
Is there an experiment that would show this fundamental resolution limit? (Do photons from distant galaxies arrive in tiny quantized angles, for instance?)
(*) With one possible exception, which is the overall program of the universe. The universe itself can run for infinite time, so long as each interaction can be computed in a finite amount of time. Basically, you can have exactly one while(1) in the main() of your universe, and all subroutines must return in a finite amount of time.
Why do you feel that our understanding of the length of a sequence of digits as infinite is truly how they are? If you exist as a 32bit representation and you have no ability to use address windowing or other similar technology, then your understanding of a 33bit or higher number becomes infinity as a consequence. As your existence has no physical ability to represent the true value of the number in question. You would have to make up a representation of an unfathomably large and unending number, like Infinity.
Also, you're still making the assumption of trying to disprove something whilst being inside of the same system. You could very well be programmed to run around in mindless loops or perceive things as infinities merely by design.
A 100% complete version of something created in another medium than the original is still a simulation of one.