pull down to refresh
@adlai
stacking since: #1195179longest cowboy streak: 4
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @adlai 6 Dec \ parent \ on: The True and Accurate History of Toxic Bitcoin Maximalism bitcoin
I never said it was my account.
One of the "beta testers" had shares there and paid me out of the profits. Several folks suspected that Mircea was running volume boosting bots and that most of the trading activity was from them, and if that is the case, then my program simply increased the cost of faking this activity.
I read his IRC output daily for a few years and operated a trading bot on MPEx for six months. Mircea tolerated me at first and eventually hated me, even going so far as to sign a message that I was attacking his republic or something. Parts of the IRC logs are quoted on his blog, although there used to be sites where you could read the daily logs of the IRC channels; these splintered apart after his followers went their separate ways.
Honestly I think you should limit your scope, otherwise there is too much to cover and plenty of noise obscuring the information you'd want. Pick specific aspects of his life, or even specific episodes of his public involvement with Bitcoin, and focus on those.
Your detachment from the events is actually a benefit in this case; anything I write would be incredibly subjective.
But if they plead guilty, what are you going to pardon? A guilty man? Then is all a theater... as it is in fact.
By definition, pardons are forgiveness of a crime, in the case where the person is guilty.
There have been several cases where people have refused conditional pardons, specifically because of the same ideological stance you have: accepting the pardon would implicitly mean that they were admitting guilt, whereas innocence needs no pardon, it is simply innocent.
I've been reading slop and news about slop daily for over a year, and only now I noticed the similarity between "Claude" and "Cloud".
I guess it shows I've not been reading Reddit much, I recall that sort of pun being all over the place in the comments there.
Anything in the blocks that get reorg'd out is gone, so that includes block subsidies.
I think your "anything" is overly general; transactions that are valid on either chain will probably get "sniped" across. The miners restoring these on the new chain would get paid fees from the transactions, and the people who had originally broadcast them would probably even be relieved that their transactions had returned to confirmed status.
I fear the Animal Farm reference might be lost on most people. SN might not be a representative sample, although in my experience even 1984 is more familiar to most people as a memeplex than an actual book that anyone has read.
also, wouldn't the similar question be quite unpleasant if phrased about other people? compassion shouldn't be modulated by an intelligence test... it is subjective enough already, simply due to unconscious and uncontrollable biases.
Thank you for linking this; to my taste, too much of news about AI/LLMs is some combination of opinions, predictions, and shallow promotions of experiments at gluing the existing tech into a new domain, and not enough research into understanding the training process and its resulting models.
Admittedly, my disappointment might be more due to where I source news.
well some people specifically practice lightning calculation; similarly to how some kid who grew up playing catch might keep on practicing with friends or the next generation, despite not needing the affordance.
I think lightning calculation has always had a bit of an "autistic savant" reputation, because it is so sterile when compared to even things like playing chess or solving a Rubik's Cube.
there's a common joke among mathematicians, that as your mathematical mind develops, so does your arithmetic computer atrophy.
I think it's quite understandable; as a mind becomes aware of more useful kinds of numbers1, and more kinds of patterns2 that enable computational tricks, there is a temptation to explore new possibilities rather than charge forth along whichever computational path was learned at a younger age.
I honestly don't think that the capability of reckoning accurately and rapidly in decimal base is worth retaining at grade-school levels. Even if you're e.g. checking over a bill at a restaurant, the important tasks are probably remembering who ordered what and comparing the billed prices to the listed ones, rather than verifying that their point-of-sale performed arithmetic correctly.
Footnotes
-
most useful kinds are ideals or fields; the most familiar ideals are multiples of any prime, while e.g. "all ratios with a power of two in the denominator" is a field ↩
-
consider the trick of doubling and shifting the decimal point left, as a shortcut for
multiplyingdividing by five; it's only the first in an infinite series of similar tricks, formultiplyingdividing by powers of five ↩
I find the effect of LLMs on this interesting: there's probably reduced pressure on humans to copyedit their own words now that producing text which is "too perfect" will win you the scorn of people [and bots...] who reflexively accuse anything of above average punctuation and grammar quality to be superhuman; this reduced pressure means greater variance in the range of spellings and grammar produced and tolerated by people, possibly accelerating dialectical drift.
bigger crews start roasting the smaller ones for how they talk and for using some less common words
it's a double-edged sword; dialect markers are also used for exposing outgroup members, e.g. how locals can recognize that some visitor is a tourist, possibly even from a foreign nation rather than just the next town over.
It's really unfortunate they used the word "eat"; if you think about microbe metabolism, and analogizing the various processes to those with which we as macroscopic animals are more familiar, then a much more accurate verb is probably "breathe".
These guys are truly a completely different species of chimp from me.
you might find this video about one specific AI proof easier for building your intuition, because it focuses on a geometrical problem rather than number theory.
Appears he recently raised $120M for this startup which seems quite a large sum for a mathematics startup... curious how investors expect to get their money back.
Off the top of my mind, two possible sources for a finite1 valuation are the possibility of getting acquired for the technology, and the possibility of selling a service that is used by customers who value mathematical rigor [e.g. aerospace engineers]. I agree that $120M is a lot, especially given how rapidly any bored undergraduate from almost any STEM field could vibe code a theorem proving agent as a semester project by gluing together open source tools.
Footnotes
-
rather than infinitesimal ↩
source the quote, please...
edit: the reply to this comment has the anchored link, although I was hoping more for something along these lines:
Thomas Bloom, Research Fellow at the University of Manchester.
Creator and maintainer of [erdosproblems.com]
should have made my complaint more specific!
edit: It's doubly unsurprising when you consider how much of what Erdos left mathematics was statements of open problems... his productive time [which was allegedly almost all of his waking hours] was spent either mercilessly roping his friends into coathoring papers with him on his ever-growing list of problems, or brainstorming interesting problems for future papers. So it's much less surprising that an Erdos problem has been attacked successfully, than e.g. a Hilbert problem.
It's not too surprising; lots of the challenges in mathematics are related to comprehensibility, not reachability.
Consider the following thought experiment:
Think of the space of all sequences of all ASCII characters; most of these are noise, right? Not even slop, just noise.
Narrow down the space, radically, to all LaTeX programs; most of these are invalid, or garbage, right? Not even slop, just garbage that you can feed a compiler to heat your computer.
Narrow the space down further, to all LaTeX programs producing renderable documents... still, we're far from anything useful, as this is essentially what the "million monkeys at a million typewriters" produce, although with less animal cruelty.
Now things get interesting: narrow down the space to the LaTeX programs that produce documents beginning with a list of axioms, and continuing with a series of propositions. Most won't be logical, although some tiny vanishing fraction of these will be valid mathematical proofs.
Are any of them proving anything new? Are any of the proofs simpler than the ones found by schoolchildren? Do any of these help us figure out which concepts are worth spending words to name, rather than considering them merely some intermediate noise which lives and dies within the span of one convoluted proof?
[...] the "spectrum" is less a spectrum (e.g., EM spectrum) than a high-dimensional subspace,
sure; however I caution that the familiar portion of the EM spectrum actually is also a low-finite-dimensional space, spanned by a basis consisting of whichever frequencies trigger your rods, cones, and various other peripheral nerves. The rainbow might look smooth from a distance, yet spectra discretize at both emission and absorption.
s.t. people can have conditions that make them quite diverse in the ways they want to take in stimuli, including interaction w/ other people.
right; the only thing worse than masking 24/7 is doing it 40/51 plus overtime, for decades of a career, and then some shmuck tells you that you're not being yourself the first time you unwind the social fiction compliance by a few clicks.
the adjective "neurotypical" loosely refers to some boring and undifferentiated neighborhood surrounded by a laughably false dichotomy, although proving this offends the social fiction of normality, and is thus academically risky.
Do you know if that's right? How does such a thing factor in?
All I can say with confidence about modern neuroscience is that they haven't declared war against psychiatry yet in response to the DSM-V categorising irrational happiness as a diagnosable condition... why should I bother chasing the moving target of how they euphemise metasocial consciousness this decade? Is the pressure to perform unsupervised learning so strong, and the lack of anything more interesting to read so dire, that I must actually respect that noise?
People deserve respect; academic disciplines don't.
Are autistic people able to communicate with each other more effectively? If so, is it bc of shared experience, or just because they make no assumption of sharing experience?
It's not a hard rule, although often people at similar levels of the spectrum will get along better than those from different levels. The resulting interaction is a little different from when two normal people with a shared interest connect over it; folks on the spectrum are quite good at "downloading" while the interlocutor "infodumps", and good luck getting a neurotypical to participate in this sort of interaction if they're not making a conscious effort to be polite... ironically enough, this effort is quite similar to how high-functioning autists describe that they can mask their condition and behave normally, although it takes a continued conscious effort.
If you had a bit of trouble and got lost in the various bits of the site that might have changed since you registered and connected your wallet, I recommend forgetting about the problem until you next see the daily reward notification, and then following the links in there to the explanation of why you receive cowboy credits rather than sats.