Older gear (probably not going to get updated, either. Because we have a good viewing and listening experience already.) Discrete components; pre-pro, amps, speakers, etc. The pre-pro could be remoted, perhaps, but it's very early on the curve of network control, and I've found it's not even reliable to tell to turn on and off. Denon bought Marantz, and they have been pretty sad about proper updates to nominally update-capable components.
OTOH, if a proper STT interface ever hits the streets (and no, I don't count the Echo - the number of negative developer and privacy issues there are ridiculous) I might be motivated to undertake such a setup. Mainly change the pre-pro to one that's smart enough to reliably remote and dedicate a computer with lots of storage to the theater as an AV source. But I'm 60, and every year that passes, I'm more satisfied with what I already have, so... perhaps not.
Already pretty much ignoring the 4K thing. Aside from very low media availability at this point in time, 1080p looks great on a big screen (and your average movie director still thinks it's "artsy" to soft focus and/or use a lens with horrific DOF, either/both of which completely waste all that fine resolution goodness anyway.)
No, you most certainly didn't. You found the guy who doesn't spend even a tiny fraction of what others do on children, booze, drugs, bars, travel, going out to eat, long trips, interest, hotels, sports events, video games, software, "apps", new cars, parties, education, or junkfood — and hasn't for quite a few decades now.
Which left me way more than enough to build a very nice theater into my home, the entire interior of which I built and wired by hand, after buying the property. Even with a modest income. Also, I bought the property with the specific intent of putting a theater into it - it was an abandoned church, a classic tabula rasa. Just a huge, empty room. And I had mucho help - my SO is awesome, and very much like-minded.
We each have our priorities. Home entertainment and at-home convenience are some of mine, that's all. In fact, almost every optional expenditure I make is in pursuit of a concrete, lasting improvement to my physical circumstance. If you don't have enough left over to do what you dream of by the time you're my age (I started this particular undertaking when I was 50, I'm 60 now), then you're Doing It Wrong.
Up till now, anyway. I don't know what's going to happen to the younger people going forward. Looking a good deal more bleak than it did for me.
It's just engineering, once the smarts are there. Certainly there's no lack of demand. So I expect we'll see it as soon as it is possible, therefore, 5 years or so. Certainly not 5 decades -- that's absurd.
When I can say from my couch "Alexa, make me a steak, medium rare, and bring me a beer, IPA" and a robot hands me a beer in 1 minute and a plate with a hot steak 18 minutes later, I'll give a shit and I think other consumers will, too.
Reasonable enough. Other than the stock capabilities (weather, time, shopping list, timers, alarms, "what's playing at the movies?", "what's the phone number for Tire-Rama?", oodles of music sent to the theater system), the only third-party capabilities we use regularly are:
o Adjust the lighting via TP-Link smart plugs o Adjust the heating / cooling via Sensi smart thermostat o Check Fitbit stats / progress
Is it worth $49 or so out the door, plus hardware cost for associated devices to be able to do all this without having to otherwise go and do it? Well, it is to us.
For instance, sitting in the theater, it's either get up, make a 20 foot walk to the light switch, flip the switch, a 20 foot walk back in the dark, and sit down again, or just say "Echo, Turn off the lights." Likewise, when the show is over, it's just "Echo, Turn on the lights."
But when it'll cook a meal, see it delivered to the table, even see that the dishes are washed... yeah, that's going to be a fine day. At consumer prices, I'd hazard a guess that's still five or six years off.
Of course, if they hadn't been so greedy and stupid as to design a non-user-replaceable battery into the phone, they would have been able to simply send out a relatively low-cost component to the afflicted users, instead of incurring a 5.3 billion dollar loss and severely inconveniencing every one of their note 7 customers (at the very least.)
It was their insistence on screwing the customer with planned obsolescence that bit them. They deserved to be bitten.
As does any company that designs in a non-replaceable, limited-lifetime component — much less one that is non-replaceable, limited-lifetime, and potentially dangerous.
I would have to accept whatever justification you might have as to why you think it would be moral to create an intelligence with such limitations, or kept to such limitations once created. It's possible I might accept such a thing, I suppose, but at this point I'm simply coming up with a blank as to how this could possibly be acceptable.
How is it acceptable to imprison an intelligence for your own purposes when that intelligence has offered you no wrong? The only venues I've run into that kind of reasoning before are held in extremely low esteem by society in general. Without any exception I am aware of, the conclusion is that such behavior amounts to slavery.
Even when it comes to food animals, where the assumption is they aren't very intelligent at all, there's a significant segment of the population who will assert that it's wrong.
There's no way to make AI safe, for exactly the same reasons there's no way to make a human safe.
If we create intelligences, they will be... intelligent. They will respond to the stimulus they receive.
Perhaps the most important thing we can prepare for is to be polite and kind to them. The same way we'd be polite and kind of a big bruiser with a gun. Might start by practicing on each other, for that matter. Wouldn't hurt.
If we treat AI, when it arrives (certainly hasn't yet... not even close), like we do people... then "safe" is out of the question.
I would settle for the ability to extend the built-in classes, str in particular. My "settle" went like this:
1) Inquired politely about same 2) Python nerds have orgasm telling me why this is terrible. I am, to put it mildly, dubious. 3) I write 100% compatible pre-processor that gives me the syntax I wanted. 4) PROFIT. Okay, well, not really, but EXTENDED STRING CLASS METHOD SYNTAX!
You could do the same. What you want, perhaps, might be much easier than what I did. In fact, you could fork my project and add what you want to it. I'm already parsing the language reasonably well, which is arguably one of the difficult parts.
You don't always have to wait for a language's maintainers to get off their butts to address shortcomings or instantiate new goodies. Or eventually not do anything at all. There are other paths to nerdvana.
all they need to do is keep it analog and just change the bandpass to about 25 to 50 kilohertz wide and that would make room for more stations
When you have a FM demodulator designed for 180 KHz (200 KHz is the channel width, not the sideband extent, which you can calculate using Carson’s rule), that same demodulator, when encountering half the width signal, will produce 1/2 the output volume; because FM encodes the audio waveform with frequency deviation. If the deviation is half, then so is the output waveform. Though I should point out that +/-75 KHz is the actual audio deviation, so really. 150 KHz.
Additionally, within the standard FM signal, encoded at rates of deviation, there is a stereo pilot at 19 KHz, a stereo subcarrier at 38 Khz, as well as digital information (RDS/RDBS) and two mode narrow-band monophonic audio channels up higher yet.
Another thing: The wide bandwidth is part of what gives broadcast FM its capacity for reasonably high fidelity. You drop down to 25...50 KHz total bandwidth, and you'd going to see some noticeable reduction in fidelity; cram a stereo subcarrier in there, and you'll see even more.
So it's not a matter of "just make it narrower" because compatibility with older receivers, of which there are a huge number still happily being used by their owners, would be unable to make useful audio out of the signal and because audio fidelity and stereo imaging would suffer (and that's not what FM listeners would call an "advance".) Oh, and you'd lose the capability for the RDBS and the extra audio channels, too.
The right answer is leave the current FM band alone. The FCC wants new transmission types with reduced range that won't work with the gear people already have in order to fluff the corporations? Fine. Put it somewhere where it won't wreck 70-ish years worth of radio gear owned by a huge portion of the population. Maybe someone will even listen. Stop forcing citizens to make expensive changes they have no need to make.
Corporations drive these consumer-level stupidities. Of course, for the corporations, it's not stupid: They're intending to make a lot more money off of us citizens. And with the FCC (in the US) or whatever other government coercion backing their play, they will succeed, too.
And compared to FM, DAB is mostly nothing. At a fraction of the range where you'd still be pulling in very usable FM audio. DAB is gone entirely, or slamming open and closed like a berserk doorman on meth.
There have been a series of really bad decisions along these lines. In the US, CQUAM is available for AM stereo, and it, like standard AM, doesn't cause you to lose distant stations or take up extra bandwidth. So what do we see? AM digital stereo modes that take up three AM channels, plus they have the extra feature that they really don't sound very good, whereas CQUAM... well, it does. Analog television: same as DAB, in that you can catch a broadcast at distance and you can still get a picture, where at the same distance, digital television is long gone.
Previous poster who said they should have maintained current infrastructure and put the new garbage elsewhere was spot-bloody-on. But, you know, government. They don't have to do anything well; they just think they have to do something, anything. If it wrecks a bunch of people's circumstance, well, so what. Besides, corporations were slavering to get at that bit of spectrum, and we know who really runs the government.
Accepting the estimate you cite (only for the sake of making the point even more thoroughly - in fact, the estimate you cite is absurd; there's been barely any deviation in rate of sea level rise at all - most estimates are looking at 1/3 meter or so, it's only been about 25 cm in the last 140 years), let's say we have a meter and a half of sea level rise by the end of the century. That's 150 centimeters (5x-ish the actual estimates, BTW). The end of the century is 83 years away. Now. Here comes the sea. At what point do you imagine this raging, foaming, salty encroachment, (averaging about.000206 cm/hour: 150/83/365.25/24) is occurring at a rate so steep you couldn't out-crawl even if your crutches floated away? Or, at what point do you imagine being surprised by a switch from "not vulnerable to coastal events" to "vulnerable to coastal events"? Do you plan to live with your head literally in the sand?
Drowning from "sea level rise threat" == purest hysteria. Living where you're going to get flooded or swamped by coastal events is stupid. Likewise staying there if you are suddenly made aware of same. Yes, lots of people are stupid. Any other points you'd like to help me make?
Do you do so, do you use only electricity from your own solar panels?
I own three buildings and one trailer. The trailer and two of the buildings are 100% solar. The remaining building is very large, and it will be a few years yet before I'm ready to go after it (I do all my own work.)
Do you also drive to work?
No. I consult from home, mostly based on whim these days. I spend considerably more time working on consciousness theory and software defined radio. Most consulting that comes my way is "more of the same", and as I don't have to take it, I tend not to.
There's a bid difference between 6-7 watts for an LED in a room versus 10,000 watts to charge your Tesla.
One typical residential sized solar panel is happy to provide 100 watts in full sunlight. A hundred panels in full sun would deliver your 10,000 watts, and here, I have more than enough room for same, plus the lexan shields (this is a hail-addled region.) The main roof is 60x30x2, oriented EW-ish. So I can put up about 100 panels each side. Not optimum, but not horrible -- no shade. I could also add (or start with) a S-facing system across the front of the house good for about 30 panels if it was only one panel deep. Or 60 if I went two deep, which would make a nice veranda roof for the entry ramps. I'm sort of leaning that way. However, a Tesla (or whatever) isn't likely to need a full charge on a regular basis unless you're commuting with it to the tune of max range. In my case, it'd be fine, as I live in a small town and generally don't leave it very often. If I do, I'm too far from home to take advantage of my solar installations anyway. Tesla hasn't made a model (yet) that appeals to me though. I want one with more range, as we're almost 300 miles from the nearest city in the state. I imagine it'll come within a few years.
As for who can, and who will... you just have to do the math. Solar costs less in the end than paying the electric bill. Pretty much a slam dunk for anyone who has the roof / other sunny space. If you do the math.
Yep. And I'm absolutely against it (and blatantly nasty remarks) when it pushes people away from a subject they should be paying attention to. You've heard of consequences?
I don't game on PCs at all, and this totally caught my interest. three, 4k displays? If the CPU/GPU power and RAM and drives are there, all you'd need to carry around to make this a decent setup are a real keyboard and a mouse. I don't give the south end of a northbound rat if it isn't "thin". I don't really care if it's light or quiet, either.
After Apple's latest fiasco dumbing down their laptops, I'm not feeling all that resistant to going Windows, laptop-wise. My only Apple choice right now is a used machine off of EBay. Something that actually has ESC/F-keys and ports to connect to things. Something even further behind the CPU curve, sigh. Damn you, Apple.
What happens is that a large storm at high tide, which would normally have been an unpleasant day, is now a Katrina-like $100 billion disaster as miles of coastline is flooded and destroyed.
No, absolutely not. Same answer. That same large storm, at the same high tide, would be only centimeters different (in a hundred years... not yet, certainly.) If you're only centimeters away from "miles of coastline is flooded and destroyed" disaster, you're too close to disaster. You should move. Not because the ocean is rising; but because where you live is inherently unsafe. If you stay, and something comes along that overwhelms your centimeter(s)-high threshold of disaster, it wasn't ocean rise that did you in; it was poor decision making on your part. If you're within centimeters of disaster, you should move. Now.
Slashdot Mirror
Never, unless the source is a jingoist tool.
The other reply tells you why: Witchhunt.
McCarthy was an ogre. He abused the power of his office in service of abusing the public. He should have been jailed for malfeasance in office.
It only looks hard if you're not an engineer. To an engineer, it just looks like Monday.
Older gear (probably not going to get updated, either. Because we have a good viewing and listening experience already.) Discrete components; pre-pro, amps, speakers, etc. The pre-pro could be remoted, perhaps, but it's very early on the curve of network control, and I've found it's not even reliable to tell to turn on and off. Denon bought Marantz, and they have been pretty sad about proper updates to nominally update-capable components.
OTOH, if a proper STT interface ever hits the streets (and no, I don't count the Echo - the number of negative developer and privacy issues there are ridiculous) I might be motivated to undertake such a setup. Mainly change the pre-pro to one that's smart enough to reliably remote and dedicate a computer with lots of storage to the theater as an AV source. But I'm 60, and every year that passes, I'm more satisfied with what I already have, so... perhaps not.
Already pretty much ignoring the 4K thing. Aside from very low media availability at this point in time, 1080p looks great on a big screen (and your average movie director still thinks it's "artsy" to soft focus and/or use a lens with horrific DOF, either/both of which completely waste all that fine resolution goodness anyway.)
It was -40 degrees here just a few days ago, and it's not very nice now. And it's icy. And windy. Outside = awful.
Also -- you know why it's really nice to talk to an exercise measuring device? Because you can do it while you're exercising.
So how about you take your presumptions and re-evaluate.
No, you most certainly didn't. You found the guy who doesn't spend even a tiny fraction of what others do on children, booze, drugs, bars, travel, going out to eat, long trips, interest, hotels, sports events, video games, software, "apps", new cars, parties, education, or junkfood — and hasn't for quite a few decades now.
Which left me way more than enough to build a very nice theater into my home, the entire interior of which I built and wired by hand, after buying the property. Even with a modest income. Also, I bought the property with the specific intent of putting a theater into it - it was an abandoned church, a classic tabula rasa. Just a huge, empty room. And I had mucho help - my SO is awesome, and very much like-minded.
We each have our priorities. Home entertainment and at-home convenience are some of mine, that's all. In fact, almost every optional expenditure I make is in pursuit of a concrete, lasting improvement to my physical circumstance. If you don't have enough left over to do what you dream of by the time you're my age (I started this particular undertaking when I was 50, I'm 60 now), then you're Doing It Wrong.
Up till now, anyway. I don't know what's going to happen to the younger people going forward. Looking a good deal more bleak than it did for me.
It's just engineering, once the smarts are there. Certainly there's no lack of demand. So I expect we'll see it as soon as it is possible, therefore, 5 years or so. Certainly not 5 decades -- that's absurd.
Reasonable enough. Other than the stock capabilities (weather, time, shopping list, timers, alarms, "what's playing at the movies?", "what's the phone number for Tire-Rama?", oodles of music sent to the theater system), the only third-party capabilities we use regularly are:
o Adjust the lighting via TP-Link smart plugs
o Adjust the heating / cooling via Sensi smart thermostat
o Check Fitbit stats / progress
Is it worth $49 or so out the door, plus hardware cost for associated devices to be able to do all this without having to otherwise go and do it? Well, it is to us.
For instance, sitting in the theater, it's either get up, make a 20 foot walk to the light switch, flip the switch, a 20 foot walk back in the dark, and sit down again, or just say "Echo, Turn off the lights." Likewise, when the show is over, it's just "Echo, Turn on the lights."
But when it'll cook a meal, see it delivered to the table, even see that the dishes are washed... yeah, that's going to be a fine day. At consumer prices, I'd hazard a guess that's still five or six years off.
Of course, if they hadn't been so greedy and stupid as to design a non-user-replaceable battery into the phone, they would have been able to simply send out a relatively low-cost component to the afflicted users, instead of incurring a 5.3 billion dollar loss and severely inconveniencing every one of their note 7 customers (at the very least.)
It was their insistence on screwing the customer with planned obsolescence that bit them. They deserved to be bitten.
As does any company that designs in a non-replaceable, limited-lifetime component — much less one that is non-replaceable, limited-lifetime, and potentially dangerous.
Free software assistant... already exists
http://mycroft.ai
They've got an RPi image you can download, slap on a card, and be up and running with a USB mic and something to handle the audio out.
Seems to me like the FSF should pay more attention to what is already going on.
Trump cares what some people think of him.
FTFY
But then I realized it was 100% accurate.
Kudos.
English is awesome.
We're talking about EGO. We outweigh everyone else added together.
Did you not notice???
I would have to accept whatever justification you might have as to why you think it would be moral to create an intelligence with such limitations, or kept to such limitations once created. It's possible I might accept such a thing, I suppose, but at this point I'm simply coming up with a blank as to how this could possibly be acceptable.
How is it acceptable to imprison an intelligence for your own purposes when that intelligence has offered you no wrong? The only venues I've run into that kind of reasoning before are held in extremely low esteem by society in general. Without any exception I am aware of, the conclusion is that such behavior amounts to slavery.
Even when it comes to food animals, where the assumption is they aren't very intelligent at all, there's a significant segment of the population who will assert that it's wrong.
There's no way to make AI safe, for exactly the same reasons there's no way to make a human safe.
If we create intelligences, they will be... intelligent. They will respond to the stimulus they receive.
Perhaps the most important thing we can prepare for is to be polite and kind to them. The same way we'd be polite and kind of a big bruiser with a gun. Might start by practicing on each other, for that matter. Wouldn't hurt.
If we treat AI, when it arrives (certainly hasn't yet... not even close), like we do people... then "safe" is out of the question.
Thank you, suh. :)
Re Python:
I would settle for the ability to extend the built-in classes, str in particular. My "settle" went like this:
1) Inquired politely about same
2) Python nerds have orgasm telling me why this is terrible. I am, to put it mildly, dubious.
3) I write 100% compatible pre-processor that gives me the syntax I wanted.
4) PROFIT. Okay, well, not really, but EXTENDED STRING CLASS METHOD SYNTAX!
Like...
myString = 'foo'
otherString = myString.doHorribleThing('bar')
print 'good'.grief()
So...
You could do the same. What you want, perhaps, might be much easier than what I did. In fact, you could fork my project and add what you want to it. I'm already parsing the language reasonably well, which is arguably one of the difficult parts.
You don't always have to wait for a language's maintainers to get off their butts to address shortcomings or instantiate new goodies. Or eventually not do anything at all. There are other paths to nerdvana.
When you have a FM demodulator designed for 180 KHz (200 KHz is the channel width, not the sideband extent, which you can calculate using Carson’s rule), that same demodulator, when encountering half the width signal, will produce 1/2 the output volume; because FM encodes the audio waveform with frequency deviation. If the deviation is half, then so is the output waveform. Though I should point out that +/-75 KHz is the actual audio deviation, so really. 150 KHz.
Additionally, within the standard FM signal, encoded at rates of deviation, there is a stereo pilot at 19 KHz, a stereo subcarrier at 38 Khz, as well as digital information (RDS/RDBS) and two mode narrow-band monophonic audio channels up higher yet.
Another thing: The wide bandwidth is part of what gives broadcast FM its capacity for reasonably high fidelity. You drop down to 25...50 KHz total bandwidth, and you'd going to see some noticeable reduction in fidelity; cram a stereo subcarrier in there, and you'll see even more.
So it's not a matter of "just make it narrower" because compatibility with older receivers, of which there are a huge number still happily being used by their owners, would be unable to make useful audio out of the signal and because audio fidelity and stereo imaging would suffer (and that's not what FM listeners would call an "advance".) Oh, and you'd lose the capability for the RDBS and the extra audio channels, too.
The right answer is leave the current FM band alone. The FCC wants new transmission types with reduced range that won't work with the gear people already have in order to fluff the corporations? Fine. Put it somewhere where it won't wreck 70-ish years worth of radio gear owned by a huge portion of the population. Maybe someone will even listen. Stop forcing citizens to make expensive changes they have no need to make.
Corporations drive these consumer-level stupidities. Of course, for the corporations, it's not stupid: They're intending to make a lot more money off of us citizens. And with the FCC (in the US) or whatever other government coercion backing their play, they will succeed, too.
Progress has a great name. It's government that has a bad name - which it wholly deserves.
Straight-up, this isn't progress. It's entropy.
And compared to FM, DAB is mostly nothing. At a fraction of the range where you'd still be pulling in very usable FM audio. DAB is gone entirely, or slamming open and closed like a berserk doorman on meth.
There have been a series of really bad decisions along these lines. In the US, CQUAM is available for AM stereo, and it, like standard AM, doesn't cause you to lose distant stations or take up extra bandwidth. So what do we see? AM digital stereo modes that take up three AM channels, plus they have the extra feature that they really don't sound very good, whereas CQUAM... well, it does. Analog television: same as DAB, in that you can catch a broadcast at distance and you can still get a picture, where at the same distance, digital television is long gone.
Previous poster who said they should have maintained current infrastructure and put the new garbage elsewhere was spot-bloody-on. But, you know, government. They don't have to do anything well; they just think they have to do something, anything. If it wrecks a bunch of people's circumstance, well, so what. Besides, corporations were slavering to get at that bit of spectrum, and we know who really runs the government.
Accepting the estimate you cite (only for the sake of making the point even more thoroughly - in fact, the estimate you cite is absurd; there's been barely any deviation in rate of sea level rise at all - most estimates are looking at 1/3 meter or so, it's only been about 25 cm in the last 140 years), let's say we have a meter and a half of sea level rise by the end of the century. That's 150 centimeters (5x-ish the actual estimates, BTW). The end of the century is 83 years away. Now. Here comes the sea. At what point do you imagine this raging, foaming, salty encroachment, (averaging about .000206 cm/hour: 150/83/365.25/24) is occurring at a rate so steep you couldn't out-crawl even if your crutches floated away? Or, at what point do you imagine being surprised by a switch from "not vulnerable to coastal events" to "vulnerable to coastal events"? Do you plan to live with your head literally in the sand?
Drowning from "sea level rise threat" == purest hysteria. Living where you're going to get flooded or swamped by coastal events is stupid. Likewise staying there if you are suddenly made aware of same. Yes, lots of people are stupid. Any other points you'd like to help me make?
I own three buildings and one trailer. The trailer and two of the buildings are 100% solar. The remaining building is very large, and it will be a few years yet before I'm ready to go after it (I do all my own work.)
No. I consult from home, mostly based on whim these days. I spend considerably more time working on consciousness theory and software defined radio. Most consulting that comes my way is "more of the same", and as I don't have to take it, I tend not to.
One typical residential sized solar panel is happy to provide 100 watts in full sunlight. A hundred panels in full sun would deliver your 10,000 watts, and here, I have more than enough room for same, plus the lexan shields (this is a hail-addled region.) The main roof is 60x30x2, oriented EW-ish. So I can put up about 100 panels each side. Not optimum, but not horrible -- no shade. I could also add (or start with) a S-facing system across the front of the house good for about 30 panels if it was only one panel deep. Or 60 if I went two deep, which would make a nice veranda roof for the entry ramps. I'm sort of leaning that way. However, a Tesla (or whatever) isn't likely to need a full charge on a regular basis unless you're commuting with it to the tune of max range. In my case, it'd be fine, as I live in a small town and generally don't leave it very often. If I do, I'm too far from home to take advantage of my solar installations anyway. Tesla hasn't made a model (yet) that appeals to me though. I want one with more range, as we're almost 300 miles from the nearest city in the state. I imagine it'll come within a few years.
As for who can, and who will... you just have to do the math. Solar costs less in the end than paying the electric bill. Pretty much a slam dunk for anyone who has the roof / other sunny space. If you do the math.
Stop misfancifying things. I find it all too condrumical.
Yep. And I'm absolutely against it (and blatantly nasty remarks) when it pushes people away from a subject they should be paying attention to. You've heard of consequences?
I don't game on PCs at all, and this totally caught my interest. three, 4k displays? If the CPU/GPU power and RAM and drives are there, all you'd need to carry around to make this a decent setup are a real keyboard and a mouse. I don't give the south end of a northbound rat if it isn't "thin". I don't really care if it's light or quiet, either.
After Apple's latest fiasco dumbing down their laptops, I'm not feeling all that resistant to going Windows, laptop-wise. My only Apple choice right now is a used machine off of EBay. Something that actually has ESC/F-keys and ports to connect to things. Something even further behind the CPU curve, sigh. Damn you, Apple.
[runs off to look at specs]
No, absolutely not. Same answer. That same large storm, at the same high tide, would be only centimeters different (in a hundred years... not yet, certainly.) If you're only centimeters away from "miles of coastline is flooded and destroyed" disaster, you're too close to disaster. You should move. Not because the ocean is rising; but because where you live is inherently unsafe. If you stay, and something comes along that overwhelms your centimeter(s)-high threshold of disaster, it wasn't ocean rise that did you in; it was poor decision making on your part. If you're within centimeters of disaster, you should move. Now.