Why do you think AI should be able to program itself?
Are you absolutely sure that was in the API documentation? Maybe you need to re-read the manual for your AI library! Or maybe, get your definition of "AI" from wikipedia instead of Star Trek?
The reason Buddha left home is because he realized life was short and impermanent. He had all the pleasures of life, and found them ultimately unsatisfying.
That was before he even began his religious studies. At the start he set out to discover how to overcome suffering! He had observed suffering old people, but also an ascetic who appeared peaceful, though starving.
The essence of Buddhism is "Don't do evil, do good, meditate."
Buddhism doesn't even teach that things are good or evil. And meditation is not anything you're supposed to do, it is only a tool you can use to reduce attachment or control your thoughts. The essence of Buddhism is the belief that suffering is caused by attachment, and that if you free yourself of attachment you free yourself of suffering. If you got a different answer, you didn't understand the lesson.
Belief in "good" and "evil" is an attachment that leads to suffering, for yourself and others. Feeling an external expectation to do things like meditate is just an attachment; feeling an attachment to meditation will bring suffering, rather than relieving it.
There are 4 rules of things you're not allowed to do, and it has nothing to do with good or evil; it has to do only with causing suffering.
Beware also of confusing Mahayana teachings that don't come from Siddhartha with Buddhist beliefs generally. Also keep in mind that Hinayana ("lesser vehicle") literally means "inferior vehicle," and is (and always was) a pejorative term. It is the equivalent of a Christian describing something as heresy, but Buddhists use a much lighter term because they don't have any expectation to follow any sort of orthodoxy; Siddhartha spoke quite clearly against belief in orthodoxy. And of course it is only the Mahayana schools which teach that term; and (ironically or not) they're the least orthodox branch. In Sri Lanka or Thailand, where they practice Theravada Buddhism, they only consider the Pali Canon (the recorded teachings of Siddhartha Gautama) to be Buddhist teachings, and anything that expands on it is just the person views of the person saying it.
And of course, I said "Buddhism mandates a form of Nihilism that nevertheless remains compassionate towards others." You don't have to like that Buddhism is this, but you also can't stop it from being that. Lots of monks describe it in this way all the time. I ask you this: is it skillful to think I would believe you instead of the monks?
Slashdot has come to this; the editors don't know the difference between things software "can't" do, and things the software is not (yet) programmed to do. Thanks for explaining it at the top of the comments; at least we still have that!
Great that you're proud of your excessive population, but I was talking about economic importance to advertisers like google.
Income per capita is very important for advertisers.
India is not a very interesting market for advertisers.
China has lots of people who buy two smart watches... for their dog.
Mexico is largely irrelevant to advertisers, other than on Mexican television. That much is true.
India has a GDP per capita of $1709. Spain has a GDP per capita of $36,340.
China is only around $8000, same as Mexico, but China has a total GDP over $10T. India's is only $2T.
Australia's GDP per capita is ~ $50,000, with a total GDP of $1.2T. That makes them way more important than India to almost any business. Australia might have more disposable income in one city than India has in the whole country!
What did Buddha learn from Alara Kalama and from Udaka Ramaputta?
Everything, and nothing. They both taught their whole systems and declared him a master, and he told them each they hadn't answered his questions and he continued his journey.
That much is well-known. But neither of them would have taught anything like existentialism; they taught the predecessor to yoga, which was divided into two schools; it is implied that they each taught one of those schools. One group practices something similar to modern yoga, but instead of healthy poses the poses were designed to damage the body; to cause suffering. It was through this suffering that a person was believed to gain better access to the spiritual realm. The other would have taught rituals that were believed to be necessary to keep the Universe working; somewhere in the world somebody had to be chanting at all times, or the world would end. Neither of these are a reasonable fit for existentialism.
Buddhism promises release from suffering for monks who dedicate themselves to living without attachment. For laypeople it promises nothing. You can't be an existentialist and a Buddhist monk at the same time; Buddhism mandates a form of Nihilism that nevertheless remains compassionate towards others who have not accepted this teaching. In Existentialism the belief is that attachments are reasonable even without external purpose, because the existence of our subjective experience is enough to create subjective meaning, which is the only type of meaning we actually know about. For an existentialist to become a Buddhist, they would need to give up their attachment to their subjective experience.
There is basically no difference between "subjective meaning" and "attachment."
A lay-Buddhist who is also an existentialist is basically just an existentialist who believes in the benefits of making Buddhist monkhood available for people whose subjective experience is difficult for them to bear and so supports the existence of a system they actually disagree with. This is because lay-Buddhists are basically non-religious people who believe in keeping the path open to a religious life for anybody that needs that much help. They almost always have the metaphysics of Brahmanism, and they often directly worship Brahma. In Thailand they will erect a statue of Brahma in front of their house, and then invite Buddhist monks to come and give them a blessing while standing next to it. The monks don't mind, they see clearly a person trying to do something good, and show compassion. My mother-in-law did that last year. Personally I find the practice hilarious. But if you join their monastery, they'll teach you that that stuff isn't part of Buddhism, it is just a secular public service that they do, just like teaching math and reading to children.
One of Siddhartha's students even tried to kill him for refusing to explain Brahman metaphysics, and that part of the story explains that even if you believe logically in Brahman metaphysics, you're not supposed to actually care, you're still supposed to be a Nihilist during your life as a human. You're explicitly not supposed to be interested in what the metaphysics is.
If a company's freedom would require "extortion," that tells the whole story right there.
You seem to think that India has some sort of Right to have foreign companies provide services there, even if the Indian Government doesn't like the services. But both sides of that might be bullshit; the company has to continually agree to provide the service, withdrawing it would never be "extortion" because they're not withholding something that belongs to somebody else or that somebody has a right to. And if their Government claims that the service isn't legal there as provided, then the most obvious, natural, and neutral answer is to simply not offer the service in that place.
Maybe India is making a wise choice, but still, the obvious answer for Google is to withdraw the service because India isn't as important as China and if you alter your service for small fish, then every country is going to completely run your business; and in conflicting ways.
The fact that you think Sweden is full of "no-go zones" (or even London, for that matter) tells me that your opinions were already manufactured by Russian troll farms.
Only in a rich country with a strong system of civics.
In poor countries that is often not the case at all, and the ruling class doesn't care about things like "less drag and deadweight losses," instead their focus is on maximizing the divide between the rich and the poor, by making sure the poor have maximized social welfare externalities. People don't care about money, they care about power, and people from rich countries measure power by their money. Governments in poor countries often measure their power by their ability to directly control the people, not by how much money they have; they already control all the money within their system, and can control any good or service offered in their country, without bothering to spend much money. If they had more money they'd just be at higher risk of being invaded by their neighbors.
The only way for google to reduce poverty in those places is to convince people in rich countries that it is politically virtuous to invade poor countries and force individual economic freedom on them.
Heavily impoverished countries are generally countries where their governments would declare war on somebody trying to make their citizens lives better, not places that would pay to make their citizens lives better.
I guess this is how they're going to do it; idiots like you will get sites that explain these things at the top of your search results, and they can just increase the volume until you stop saying such stupid shit.
Didn't read past that, but you might want to look it up.;)
Turns out, we're the most important country in the world, and even our enemies agree. You're just an idiot jousting with a windmill.
If you ever get internet access, check to see what exists outside your tiny country. There is a whole big world out there, and wherever you're from, your countries significance in the world is very small. Railing at clouds doesn't change that in any way; you probably have no idea that sort of more serious complaints people have that are nevertheless insignificant to a country like the United States that so many people care so much about.
The vast majority of people in the world wouldn't even be willing to take up arms and fight for their country! The US has 5% of the world population, and even Grandma is willing to fight to the death to protect it. And then consider that most countries in the world are also willing to fight to defend the US! Who defends you country, some bigger country that is tiny compared to the US and derives their protection from us? Thought so!
OK, so if I only want people who understand their basic choices and comprehend how their technology habits affect them personally, then idiots who think they need Brandybrand(TM)/Brandybrand(TM)/Brandybrand(TM) or Brandybrand(TM) in order to have friends will think I have no friends.
Probably so. Probably also why I'm searching with bing more often now, too.
I remember the old days when google's search interface had an actual search language, with a bunch of operators that I could use to search for what I wanted. Almost none of that exists anymore, now instead of searching for what I want, I can only search for whatever google's interests are that share half the keywords. Weak sauce. Very weak sauce.
That they consider it an improvement just guarantees that they learn my preferences by learning which of their services I'm no longer willing to consider using.
Maybe you're right that you're one of the people responsible, but don't blame me.
I've been running open source browsers since the 90s. They work well. And did you know you can bypass many news paywalls by browsing with lynx? (Or just turning stylesheets off for that page)
There was a time when slashdot was only safe to browse in ASCII, even.
Yeah, if you need some kind of special functionality that would be awful to include in a web browser, then you should have to write some fucking application software and run it in its own damn process.
This isn't something that "sites" have a legit reason to do. All the legit use cases are people at work doing jobs, who could just install a damn application, and if it includes a browser plugin, that's what plugin technology is for. People who gave up that technology deserve to live without it. They certainly don't have a need to force all the possible obnoxious plugins on all users to make up for the fact that they deleted their plugin system.
If only you actually used web browsers, you'd probably think of doing a web search to find out what the other options are.
If you did use a web browser, you wouldn't really even have to know how search works, you could just type a question into the part of the screen with a place to type stuff and then press Enter.
Lots of people use open source browsers, even Free Software browsers. They work quite well. So claiming it is "the reality for web browsers" is just a ridiculous statement.
If you're pathologically unable to use good software, own it, don't blame reality.
This is why I never stopped using Firefox in the first place. Trust matters. Don't go from ownership to sharecropping just because a company made you the offer.
Based on my reading of Dante's Inferno, I would say that if he is "going through" Hell then it probably quite possible to get good grades. The real problem would be if he was not actually going through at all, and yet still there.
I'm not sure how Geography would even contribute to the analysis; how deep under the Earth is Hell again?
Mount Diablo also sounds a like more an exit than an entrance. Maybe the only relation that Hell has to the problem is that if you're standing next to the exit, you only just got to Purgatory and you have a lot more work to do!
All of that said, Diablo only means Devil. Surely such a school district would more accurately resemble the book of Job.
What most people can't comprehend about it is that the thing the people on the jury are doing when they decide guilt based on broader considerations of Justice is protected. And you could call that "jury nullification."
But when Judges are talking about Jury Nullification, and when the legal community is talking about it, that isn't what they mean. What they mean when they talk about it is a totally different act; the act of telling members of a jury that they can just ignore the law if they don't like it. The Jury isn't actually supposed to do that, its just that they never would without somebody telling them; when the Jury does it legitimately it is because having weighed the facts and the law they felt Justice for the community was best served by a Not Guilty verdict. They wouldn't be asked to explain it in such a deep way that it would even get into their opinions on the Law. So the banned thing isn't what the Jury does; the Jury can nullify not the law, but the application of the law in a particular instance before them. But that doesn't imply that it is acceptable for a lawyer to falsely tell the Jury that they can disregard the law. And when the Jury decides that Justice is best served by a Not Guilty verdict, they're not disregarding the law, they're simply including the goal of Justice in their analysis, which is part of their mandate.
This is why people who spout off about "Jury Nullification" are almost guaranteed to be ignorant of the law, or just trolling. If they understood the situation, and they truly wanted Juries to come to that sort of conclusion more often, they'd quit trying to confuse juries talking about "nullification" and they'd adopt some talking points about the Duty to consider the Justice of the result in each particular instance. But they don't want that, instead they want to incite Juries to mob-like behavior where they just repeat some echo-chamber nonsense and refuse to do the analysis they're instructed to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you think AI should be able to program itself?
Are you absolutely sure that was in the API documentation? Maybe you need to re-read the manual for your AI library! Or maybe, get your definition of "AI" from wikipedia instead of Star Trek?
Thank you for throwing yourself onto your sword as a demonstration!
Yes, kids, use this example, don't try to run and think at the same time.
The reason Buddha left home is because he realized life was short and impermanent. He had all the pleasures of life, and found them ultimately unsatisfying.
That was before he even began his religious studies. At the start he set out to discover how to overcome suffering! He had observed suffering old people, but also an ascetic who appeared peaceful, though starving.
The essence of Buddhism is "Don't do evil, do good, meditate."
Buddhism doesn't even teach that things are good or evil. And meditation is not anything you're supposed to do, it is only a tool you can use to reduce attachment or control your thoughts. The essence of Buddhism is the belief that suffering is caused by attachment, and that if you free yourself of attachment you free yourself of suffering. If you got a different answer, you didn't understand the lesson.
Belief in "good" and "evil" is an attachment that leads to suffering, for yourself and others. Feeling an external expectation to do things like meditate is just an attachment; feeling an attachment to meditation will bring suffering, rather than relieving it.
There are 4 rules of things you're not allowed to do, and it has nothing to do with good or evil; it has to do only with causing suffering.
Beware also of confusing Mahayana teachings that don't come from Siddhartha with Buddhist beliefs generally. Also keep in mind that Hinayana ("lesser vehicle") literally means "inferior vehicle," and is (and always was) a pejorative term. It is the equivalent of a Christian describing something as heresy, but Buddhists use a much lighter term because they don't have any expectation to follow any sort of orthodoxy; Siddhartha spoke quite clearly against belief in orthodoxy. And of course it is only the Mahayana schools which teach that term; and (ironically or not) they're the least orthodox branch. In Sri Lanka or Thailand, where they practice Theravada Buddhism, they only consider the Pali Canon (the recorded teachings of Siddhartha Gautama) to be Buddhist teachings, and anything that expands on it is just the person views of the person saying it.
And of course, I said "Buddhism mandates a form of Nihilism that nevertheless remains compassionate towards others." You don't have to like that Buddhism is this, but you also can't stop it from being that. Lots of monks describe it in this way all the time. I ask you this: is it skillful to think I would believe you instead of the monks?
The most common phrase on Slashdot is Correlation != Causation.
You're wrong. The three most common phrases on slashdot are:
Slashdot has come to this; the editors don't know the difference between things software "can't" do, and things the software is not (yet) programmed to do. Thanks for explaining it at the top of the comments; at least we still have that!
Great that you're proud of your excessive population, but I was talking about economic importance to advertisers like google.
Income per capita is very important for advertisers.
India is not a very interesting market for advertisers.
China has lots of people who buy two smart watches... for their dog.
Mexico is largely irrelevant to advertisers, other than on Mexican television. That much is true.
India has a GDP per capita of $1709. Spain has a GDP per capita of $36,340.
China is only around $8000, same as Mexico, but China has a total GDP over $10T. India's is only $2T.
Australia's GDP per capita is ~ $50,000, with a total GDP of $1.2T. That makes them way more important than India to almost any business. Australia might have more disposable income in one city than India has in the whole country!
What did Buddha learn from Alara Kalama and from Udaka Ramaputta?
Everything, and nothing. They both taught their whole systems and declared him a master, and he told them each they hadn't answered his questions and he continued his journey.
That much is well-known. But neither of them would have taught anything like existentialism; they taught the predecessor to yoga, which was divided into two schools; it is implied that they each taught one of those schools. One group practices something similar to modern yoga, but instead of healthy poses the poses were designed to damage the body; to cause suffering. It was through this suffering that a person was believed to gain better access to the spiritual realm. The other would have taught rituals that were believed to be necessary to keep the Universe working; somewhere in the world somebody had to be chanting at all times, or the world would end. Neither of these are a reasonable fit for existentialism.
Buddhism promises release from suffering for monks who dedicate themselves to living without attachment. For laypeople it promises nothing. You can't be an existentialist and a Buddhist monk at the same time; Buddhism mandates a form of Nihilism that nevertheless remains compassionate towards others who have not accepted this teaching. In Existentialism the belief is that attachments are reasonable even without external purpose, because the existence of our subjective experience is enough to create subjective meaning, which is the only type of meaning we actually know about. For an existentialist to become a Buddhist, they would need to give up their attachment to their subjective experience.
There is basically no difference between "subjective meaning" and "attachment."
A lay-Buddhist who is also an existentialist is basically just an existentialist who believes in the benefits of making Buddhist monkhood available for people whose subjective experience is difficult for them to bear and so supports the existence of a system they actually disagree with. This is because lay-Buddhists are basically non-religious people who believe in keeping the path open to a religious life for anybody that needs that much help. They almost always have the metaphysics of Brahmanism, and they often directly worship Brahma. In Thailand they will erect a statue of Brahma in front of their house, and then invite Buddhist monks to come and give them a blessing while standing next to it. The monks don't mind, they see clearly a person trying to do something good, and show compassion. My mother-in-law did that last year. Personally I find the practice hilarious. But if you join their monastery, they'll teach you that that stuff isn't part of Buddhism, it is just a secular public service that they do, just like teaching math and reading to children.
One of Siddhartha's students even tried to kill him for refusing to explain Brahman metaphysics, and that part of the story explains that even if you believe logically in Brahman metaphysics, you're not supposed to actually care, you're still supposed to be a Nihilist during your life as a human. You're explicitly not supposed to be interested in what the metaphysics is.
Your analysis depends on if they only have people who care about market share, or if they also hired a few MBAs to think about making money.
If a company's freedom would require "extortion," that tells the whole story right there.
You seem to think that India has some sort of Right to have foreign companies provide services there, even if the Indian Government doesn't like the services. But both sides of that might be bullshit; the company has to continually agree to provide the service, withdrawing it would never be "extortion" because they're not withholding something that belongs to somebody else or that somebody has a right to. And if their Government claims that the service isn't legal there as provided, then the most obvious, natural, and neutral answer is to simply not offer the service in that place.
Maybe India is making a wise choice, but still, the obvious answer for Google is to withdraw the service because India isn't as important as China and if you alter your service for small fish, then every country is going to completely run your business; and in conflicting ways.
If you ever learn how to use the internet, you should look up a map of the Bay Area and find out if Google is from San Francisco, or some other place.
We have it in Oregon, it works great. Oh, BTW, we're one of those United States. Many other States have direct democracy, too.
There aren't many other places in the world that have it at all, I doubt there is anyplace that does it better than Oregon.
Direct Democracy is an important idea, I'd encourage you to learn more about it.
The fact that you think Sweden is full of "no-go zones" (or even London, for that matter) tells me that your opinions were already manufactured by Russian troll farms.
Or, this is just some blah-blah by a person whose job at google actually just design.
Only in a rich country with a strong system of civics.
In poor countries that is often not the case at all, and the ruling class doesn't care about things like "less drag and deadweight losses," instead their focus is on maximizing the divide between the rich and the poor, by making sure the poor have maximized social welfare externalities. People don't care about money, they care about power, and people from rich countries measure power by their money. Governments in poor countries often measure their power by their ability to directly control the people, not by how much money they have; they already control all the money within their system, and can control any good or service offered in their country, without bothering to spend much money. If they had more money they'd just be at higher risk of being invaded by their neighbors.
The only way for google to reduce poverty in those places is to convince people in rich countries that it is politically virtuous to invade poor countries and force individual economic freedom on them.
Heavily impoverished countries are generally countries where their governments would declare war on somebody trying to make their citizens lives better, not places that would pay to make their citizens lives better.
I guess this is how they're going to do it; idiots like you will get sites that explain these things at the top of your search results, and they can just increase the volume until you stop saying such stupid shit.
Fun fact, nobody cares about America.
Didn't read past that, but you might want to look it up. ;)
Turns out, we're the most important country in the world, and even our enemies agree. You're just an idiot jousting with a windmill.
If you ever get internet access, check to see what exists outside your tiny country. There is a whole big world out there, and wherever you're from, your countries significance in the world is very small. Railing at clouds doesn't change that in any way; you probably have no idea that sort of more serious complaints people have that are nevertheless insignificant to a country like the United States that so many people care so much about.
The vast majority of people in the world wouldn't even be willing to take up arms and fight for their country! The US has 5% of the world population, and even Grandma is willing to fight to the death to protect it. And then consider that most countries in the world are also willing to fight to defend the US! Who defends you country, some bigger country that is tiny compared to the US and derives their protection from us? Thought so!
OK, so if I only want people who understand their basic choices and comprehend how their technology habits affect them personally, then idiots who think they need Brandybrand(TM)/Brandybrand(TM)/Brandybrand(TM) or Brandybrand(TM) in order to have friends will think I have no friends.
That impacts me how, exactly?
Probably so. Probably also why I'm searching with bing more often now, too.
I remember the old days when google's search interface had an actual search language, with a bunch of operators that I could use to search for what I wanted. Almost none of that exists anymore, now instead of searching for what I want, I can only search for whatever google's interests are that share half the keywords. Weak sauce. Very weak sauce.
That they consider it an improvement just guarantees that they learn my preferences by learning which of their services I'm no longer willing to consider using.
Maybe you're right that you're one of the people responsible, but don't blame me.
I've been running open source browsers since the 90s. They work well. And did you know you can bypass many news paywalls by browsing with lynx? (Or just turning stylesheets off for that page)
There was a time when slashdot was only safe to browse in ASCII, even.
Yeah, if you need some kind of special functionality that would be awful to include in a web browser, then you should have to write some fucking application software and run it in its own damn process.
This isn't something that "sites" have a legit reason to do. All the legit use cases are people at work doing jobs, who could just install a damn application, and if it includes a browser plugin, that's what plugin technology is for. People who gave up that technology deserve to live without it. They certainly don't have a need to force all the possible obnoxious plugins on all users to make up for the fact that they deleted their plugin system.
If only you actually used web browsers, you'd probably think of doing a web search to find out what the other options are.
If you did use a web browser, you wouldn't really even have to know how search works, you could just type a question into the part of the screen with a place to type stuff and then press Enter.
Lots of people use open source browsers, even Free Software browsers. They work quite well. So claiming it is "the reality for web browsers" is just a ridiculous statement.
If you're pathologically unable to use good software, own it, don't blame reality.
This is why I never stopped using Firefox in the first place. Trust matters. Don't go from ownership to sharecropping just because a company made you the offer.
Based on my reading of Dante's Inferno, I would say that if he is "going through" Hell then it probably quite possible to get good grades. The real problem would be if he was not actually going through at all, and yet still there.
I'm not sure how Geography would even contribute to the analysis; how deep under the Earth is Hell again?
Mount Diablo also sounds a like more an exit than an entrance. Maybe the only relation that Hell has to the problem is that if you're standing next to the exit, you only just got to Purgatory and you have a lot more work to do!
All of that said, Diablo only means Devil. Surely such a school district would more accurately resemble the book of Job.
What most people can't comprehend about it is that the thing the people on the jury are doing when they decide guilt based on broader considerations of Justice is protected. And you could call that "jury nullification."
But when Judges are talking about Jury Nullification, and when the legal community is talking about it, that isn't what they mean. What they mean when they talk about it is a totally different act; the act of telling members of a jury that they can just ignore the law if they don't like it. The Jury isn't actually supposed to do that, its just that they never would without somebody telling them; when the Jury does it legitimately it is because having weighed the facts and the law they felt Justice for the community was best served by a Not Guilty verdict. They wouldn't be asked to explain it in such a deep way that it would even get into their opinions on the Law. So the banned thing isn't what the Jury does; the Jury can nullify not the law, but the application of the law in a particular instance before them. But that doesn't imply that it is acceptable for a lawyer to falsely tell the Jury that they can disregard the law. And when the Jury decides that Justice is best served by a Not Guilty verdict, they're not disregarding the law, they're simply including the goal of Justice in their analysis, which is part of their mandate.
This is why people who spout off about "Jury Nullification" are almost guaranteed to be ignorant of the law, or just trolling. If they understood the situation, and they truly wanted Juries to come to that sort of conclusion more often, they'd quit trying to confuse juries talking about "nullification" and they'd adopt some talking points about the Duty to consider the Justice of the result in each particular instance. But they don't want that, instead they want to incite Juries to mob-like behavior where they just repeat some echo-chamber nonsense and refuse to do the analysis they're instructed to do.