pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @south_korea_ln 9h \ on: Inside China's Underground Bitcoin Playground bitcoin
@JoeNakamoto
No, every account is in one's personal name. I can request a second card and let my wife use it, but it still in my name. And vice-versa.
Funny thing, majority of couples in Korea operate this way:
Korea is still a very patriarchal society; husbands make the money and then send all their income to their wives. The wives manage the household money and send a small allowance of a couple of hundred dollars to their husbands for personal spending.
Gotta make sure he does not have too much money to spend at the room salons~~ (this one is tongue-in-cheek, the allowance part is real)
Many, in my job. Some theoretical physicists are really out of this world. It's surreal.
I feel like an idiot more often than not, when talking to them.
I'm good at communicating, but not so smart.
The truly unique ones are the ones that are super smart and can communicate. I've only met a few, and these are truly a joy to interact with.
I'll come back to this if i remember some anecdotes later in the day.
Scihub has gone this way for scientific articles. They have a side platform where people can request papers, pay for it, and uploaders of said papers get paid for it.
Only thing is... They went the shitcoin way. You need to buy some token on Solana.
A pity after they basically survived in early years thanks to Bitcoin donations.
(I know plan B claims to have done this)
The guy from the "let me do some polynomial (?) fitting to match historical data and adjust it as it keeps getting invalidated with new data"-S2F model?
I would not trust any of his claims~~
Many OGs have shown themselves to be as much driven by fiat profits as many late-coming NGU people. The cypherpunk community is fringe and likely always will be. Even someone like Adam Back, with amazing contributions to the movement pre-Satoshi, has shown his true self.
Lots of smart people, lots of idiots, too. Not more, not less than anywhere else in society.
No, Bitcoiners are not smarter than the average person (#1015955).
And who knows, Satoshi himself might have offloaded his coins to BlackRock for a few paper IOUs if he were still around.
Slay your heroes~~
Interesting... not the kind of science I am versed in... lots of faith-based examples and anecdotes.
Years ago, when my daughter was just two, I hired a babysitter who checked all the boxes. She was attentive and responsible, and she seemed to genuinely care for my child. And yet…something felt off. I couldn’t explain it. We barely communicated beyond work-related tasks, and being around her felt uncomfortable in ways I couldn’t put into words.
So, I let her go a month later—still unsure why.
Weeks after, I began finding tiny sewing needles in unusual places: by the front door, in the corners of my bedroom. At first, I dismissed it. But then a friend from my culture pointed something out: in some traditions, placing sharp objects like needles in hidden spaces is part of magic rituals meant to harm or manipulate a household. Whether one believes in this or not, it shook me. My body knew something was wrong—before my mind could catch up.
[...]
During my first pregnancy, for example, I was walking in the park with my ex-husband, feeling healthy and joyful. Out of nowhere, I said, “If I die, name her Aru. If it’s a boy, name him Zhan.” There was no discussion, no logic behind it. The names just arrived. From where? I can’t say. But I believe they came from a place beyond intellect—something that connects us to deeper wisdom.
[...]
In 2017, I was told by doctors that I had a life-threatening condition. Later, it turned out to be a mistake, but in that moment, I couldn't eat or sleep and felt ungrounded.
That night, I came home, sat on the floor, and started to pray. I turned off all noise and searched for how to meditate. I began with 60 minutes a day. I didn’t know what I was doing, but something inside me said: go deeper. And then, literally—I saw a card on my desk that said exactly that: go deeper.
It does link to a published paper, but didn't read it: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pon.4829
I did not like the infinite scroll too much when checking out coins. PTSD from all the social media platforms. It's probably not infinite, but that's what it felt like until I closed the window.
I played around a bit, even bought a random coin, and everything went smoothly. Lightning login went through on first pass, that's not always the case with other platforms.
Aesthetically, looks good, I guess~~
I don't have an artistic fiber in me, so my assessment on this is not worth much.
32 posts, but only 236 sats stacked... half your posts are outlawed.
This is SN telling you they don't like your AI crap.
I hadn't heard of this kind of use of AI. I've found it to excel at helping me in grant proposal writing, so I'm not too surprised. You know where to test it out?
Yeah, probably very similar results for Korea regarding the likelihood to use SAT-style prep courses... the numbers might be even higher.
Everything to get someone into a good university and land a good job. Nothing is off the table. Not even the double-eye-lid surgery highschool graduation gift~~
Embryo selection is only allowed to avoid serious genetic diseases. It's not legal for non-medical traits.
Where anthropomorphization loses me
The moment that people ascribe properties such as "consciousness" or "ethics" or "values" or "morals" to these learnt mappings is where I tend to get lost. We are speaking about a big recurrence equation that produces a new word, and that stops producing words if we don't crank the shaft.
To me, wondering if this contraption will "wake up" is similarly bewildering as if I was to ask a computational meteorologist if he isn't afraid of his meteorological numerical calculation will "wake up".
I am baffled that the AI discussions seem to never move away from treating a function to generate sequences of words as something that resembles a human. Statements such as "an AI agent could become an insider threat so it needs monitoring" are simultaneously unsurprising (you have a randomized sequence generator fed into your shell, literally anything can happen!) and baffling (you talk as if you believe the dice you play with had a mind of their own and could decide to conspire against you).
Instead of saying "we cannot ensure that no harmful sequences will be generated by our function, partially because we don't know how to specify and enumerate harmful sequences", we talk about "behaviors", "ethical constraints", and "harmful actions in pursuit of their goals". All of these are anthropocentric concepts that - in my mind - do not apply to functions or other mathematical objects. And using them muddles the discussion, and our thinking about what we're doing when we create, analyze, deploy and monitor LLMs.
Completely on the same page as OP here. It maybe feels like magic and human-like, but it's still a deterministic black box (if we take a fixed seed).