Untitled. Wait... Curse you, Russell!

@daniel-r-h

I'm a programmer living in the United States, particularly interested in Rust and formal verification. I'm interested in rationality, science, science fiction, fantasy, computers, programming, system administration, mathematics, linguistics, writing, transhumanism, improving the world, and pretty much anything else.Live long and prosper, don't forget to be awesome, etc.

2,079 posts

this is what intersectionalism looked like back in 1979 before they invented the idea of having ideas

eightyonekilograms

To the point where I think a word might have been edited out, though I don’tb have a guess as to what and can’t think of one which makes the sentence good. Inter-word space is usually the same throughout a line, including in the other lines here.

(Also kerning is intra-word spacing, which seems fine here. Kerning is when Apple messes with CSS to speak out the letters of the last word in “There’s more to love with every click”.)

Why did they have an anti-slavery warning in the bathroom of this movie theater

A false anti-slavery warning. Texas still has forced labor, often for the benefit of private corporations, and it is not a crime to obtain it. The 13th amendment is fourteen words too long and Texas takes advantage of them.

I was briefly on a kids’ bowling league when i was about 11 (ten-pin bowling, USA). One time a kid threw the ball and it went immediately into the gutter. It rolled down the gutter the entire lane, but then somehow at the end it bounced out of the gutter and knocked down a couple of pins. The coach promptly went into the computer and took away those points. Was the coach right to do so?

YES - the kid threw a gutter ball and that's that

NO - the kid knocked down pins and that's that

Technically yes but it's mean to do that to a kid

View results / I don't know how bowling works / vegetarian

I was briefly on a kids’ bowling league when i was about 11 (ten-pin bowling, USA). One time a kid threw the ball and it went immediately into the gutter. It rolled down the gutter the entire lane, but then somehow at the end it bounced out of the gutter and knocked down a couple of pins. The coach promptly went into the computer and took away those points. Was the coach right to do so?

YES - the kid threw a gutter ball and that's that

NO - the kid knocked down pins and that's that

Technically yes but it's mean to do that to a kid

View results / I don't know how bowling works / vegetarian

Remaining time: 6 days 2 hours

If this was the correct thing according to the rules, what happens if that’s the first roll of a frame? Do you need to reset the pins? If not, what if the next roll does not go in the gutter and knocks down the rest of the pins; is it prevented from being a spare?

the pins are reset, yeah. (see 2.4.2 here)

I looked it up after I posted and found the USBC Rules, which says something similar as part of 6b, so that answers the questions I asked.

But the USBC doesn’t seem to define whether the lane technically includes the gutter, and if the IBF does it isn’t in chapter 2 (and they don’t seem to have the other chapters on their website). Random hints from what I can find say probably yes, so the points shouldn’t have been deducted? But it could go either way.

USBC 6b 8 and 9 talk specifically about "dead wood on the lane or in the gutter", which implies they are different places, and the Equipment Specifications and Certifications Manual for USBC says "Gutters shall be placed on each side of the lane", and also defines the width of the lane as 41.5 inches, accompanied by this diagram showing the 41.5 inches not including the gutter:

it is kind of weird that they don't define lane and gutter more directly somewhere (if they do, I haven't found it). but i do think it adds up to gutter balls leaving the lane and making subsequent pinfalls illegal.

Ah, I looked for a diagram like that but didn’t find one. You’re probably right that a gutterball counts as leaving the lane.

I was basing my thoughts on misreading the answer to 6a/3, and on a PDF that claimed to be a full IBF rulebook instead of chapter 2 saying

A regulation bowling lane, including flat gutters, kickbacks and approach, must be constructed of wood and/or synthetic materials

but on a closer reading that section says it’s just a summary of the relevant parts of the USBC Equipment Specifications Manual, and the “including” probably was not meant to say that the lane actually includes all of that.

I was briefly on a kids’ bowling league when i was about 11 (ten-pin bowling, USA). One time a kid threw the ball and it went immediately into the gutter. It rolled down the gutter the entire lane, but then somehow at the end it bounced out of the gutter and knocked down a couple of pins. The coach promptly went into the computer and took away those points. Was the coach right to do so?

YES - the kid threw a gutter ball and that's that

NO - the kid knocked down pins and that's that

Technically yes but it's mean to do that to a kid

View results / I don't know how bowling works / vegetarian

I was briefly on a kids’ bowling league when i was about 11 (ten-pin bowling, USA). One time a kid threw the ball and it went immediately into the gutter. It rolled down the gutter the entire lane, but then somehow at the end it bounced out of the gutter and knocked down a couple of pins. The coach promptly went into the computer and took away those points. Was the coach right to do so?

YES - the kid threw a gutter ball and that's that

NO - the kid knocked down pins and that's that

Technically yes but it's mean to do that to a kid

View results / I don't know how bowling works / vegetarian

Remaining time: 6 days 2 hours

If this was the correct thing according to the rules, what happens if that’s the first roll of a frame? Do you need to reset the pins? If not, what if the next roll does not go in the gutter and knocks down the rest of the pins; is it prevented from being a spare?

the pins are reset, yeah. (see 2.4.2 here)

I looked it up after I posted and found the USBC Rules, which says something similar as part of 6b, so that answers the questions I asked.

But the USBC doesn’t seem to define whether the lane technically includes the gutter, and if the IBF does it isn’t in chapter 2 (and they don’t seem to have the other chapters on their website). Random hints from what I can find say probably yes, so the points shouldn’t have been deducted? But it could go either way.

would you rather take, (tax-free)

$50,000

50% chance of $1,000,000

Remaining time: 1 day 10 hours

i don't think you can conclude that people picking the 50k are inumerate. the right choice would depend on the individuals utility function and current wealth, right?

Yeah seems like a function of risk tolerance

That ambiguously works in the version here and doesn’t work in the screenshot. It takes time and effort to find a hedge fund, I might not be able to convince them I’m in the situation, and in the original screenshotted poll it was “instant”.

I was briefly on a kids’ bowling league when i was about 11 (ten-pin bowling, USA). One time a kid threw the ball and it went immediately into the gutter. It rolled down the gutter the entire lane, but then somehow at the end it bounced out of the gutter and knocked down a couple of pins. The coach promptly went into the computer and took away those points. Was the coach right to do so?

YES - the kid threw a gutter ball and that's that

NO - the kid knocked down pins and that's that

Technically yes but it's mean to do that to a kid

View results / I don't know how bowling works / vegetarian

I was briefly on a kids’ bowling league when i was about 11 (ten-pin bowling, USA). One time a kid threw the ball and it went immediately into the gutter. It rolled down the gutter the entire lane, but then somehow at the end it bounced out of the gutter and knocked down a couple of pins. The coach promptly went into the computer and took away those points. Was the coach right to do so?

YES - the kid threw a gutter ball and that's that

NO - the kid knocked down pins and that's that

Technically yes but it's mean to do that to a kid

View results / I don't know how bowling works / vegetarian

Remaining time: 6 days 2 hours

If this was the correct thing according to the rules, what happens if that’s the first roll of a frame? Do you need to reset the pins? If not, what if the next roll does not go in the gutter and knocks down the rest of the pins; is it prevented from being a spare?

deadgenerations

crazy that the premier of Queensland is being protected by a gag order for having an affair

deadgenerations

I'm literally not allowed to say this but the high profile man is literally the premier of Queensland.

Very few things make me a Strutting Obnoxious American but "it is common in other countries for politicians and major figures to be able to ban public discussion of their flaws" drives me up the wall. How do you not eat these people?

Every so often I see people saying that Americans don’t really have free speech, and I often agree. Even if I pretend none of the restrictions are from the government, they are still there, and are usually still bad.

Every so often I see people say that other countries do have free speech, or at least as much as the US does, and it never takes me long to find a story like this.

get it right:

if i'm correcting you on something that matters to me, i'm correcting misinformation

if you're correcting me on something that matters to you, you're engaging in pedantry

And what’s the third person form of the verb again?

#Gotta love irregular verbs

me watching monsters inc as a kid: how did it take so long for anyone to figure out that human child laughter not only produced energy like screams, but was more effective, and that children aren’t actually dangerous at all?

me watching monsters inc now: monsters incorporated, a multi-billion dollar corporate giant, stood to make extra profits off a scream shortage because low supply with high demand makes it possible to charge a fortune for a necessary commodity and everyone has no choice but to pay the high prices because they can’t go without electricity. Therefore Monsters Inc, as well as any other major powers that may have existed at the start of the era of using scream energy, fabricated the idea that only screams could generate sustainable energy sources in order to create artificial scarcity, because laugh energy was far easier to obtain and far more efficient, and therefore stood to lower the value of energy due to surplus. They also fabricated the idea that human children were toxic, in order to a) make other monsters too afraid to go near them to do research and possibly discover the secret of laugh energy, and b) to make monsters so afraid of going near them that there is a shortage of scarers, making it harder for rival companies to rise up and create competition. Even in the monster world, capitalism is based on lies, greed and cruelty, and even monster companies have no qualms about using and abusing children to maximize profits.

bulldyke-rider-deactivated20251

Watching people understand the plot lol

damn u right sorry i didn’t understand the complexities of capitalist propaganda when I was 4, I’ll try to be a better person going forward 🙏

now-phaeton-flier

I feel like this theory ignores the differences between Monsters, Inc and (real world) fossil fuel industry.

Switching from from Scream to Laughter is a lot easier than switching from being a coal or oil plant to, e.g. Solar. It’s the same technology (closet doors) and the same distribution and collection system. The only change is the front line workers, and given that laughter is so much more powerful, even a bad comedian could keep their job.

Waternoose isn’t running the De Beers company, happily creating/exploiting a fake shortage to get richer. The City is suffering from regular brownouts and he’s about to lose the Company, that’s why he needed to start kidnapping and soul-sucking random kids. If he knew about Laughter, he could’ve switched over for the cost of a few nights of comedy training for the scarers.

“Corrupt Executives will do horrible things to stay in business” is true; “Corrupt executives will ignore obvious, cheap, and legal solutions to problems even as they’re about to lose their riches” is not.

The funny thing is, the movie does have things to say about Capitalism and Business, it’s just not what OP insists it is.

Monsters, Incorporated, in the movie, is the lie of the Old Company, and Sully is the Company Man. If you show up, and do your work, the Company will take care of you and your community. Sully is proud to be a Scarer, not because it proves he’s cool or because he’s the best, but because hes proud to be part of this Great Work that supports the city. Monsters, Inc makes electricity and he gets to be part of that.

Mr Waternoose isn’t his Boss, some old coot in charge who doesn’t get the little guy: he’s a former scarer himself, a mentor to Sully. He might own and run the factory because it’s been in his family for generations, but he gets it! He presents himself as wanting good scarers not just because it makes him money but because the Company Needs It. He doesn’t want to lose the company not just because he wants to be rich but because he’s presenting himself as part of a system the city needs.

It’s a very out of the 50s idea, the company you work for your whole life and in exchange it takes care of you. It’s a very liberal sort of idea, honestly, this marriage of Labor and Capital.

And the film’s criticism is that The Company was a lie, it was not this happy family here to care for you, it was willing to do atrocities to keep from collapsing and it was willing to kill anyone—even the Golden Boy Sully—that might threaten that. You cannot, actually, trust Waternoose, however he presents himself—he is not your Dad, he is your Boss.

It’s a kids movie, of course, and not a strong polemic against the system—so it does end with the same system in place, Screams changed to Laughter and the Evil CEO replaced with a Good Boss.

I don’t remember if they say where the idea that children are dangerous comes from, but it does seem plausible Waternoose (or a predecessor) invented that part. Builds a bigger moat to make competition harder.

But yeah the Company would do better if they could create more product for cheaper. In Econ 101 that’s always true for a monopoly (and always true in a competitive market if your competitors don’t learn your secret, which they would in this case), although there are complications where sometimes you might not want that if you have weird regulations (and power companies usually do). But we certainly see that they be better off with more product in this case, where they are actively doing R&D to find ways to get more of the product, and genuinely hope the R&D project succeeds.

#A company might say that what they do is dangerous #But there is rarely a reason to lie and say the product is dangerous #The first paragraph is not a valid analogy to the claim that AI companies only say AI is dangerous as propaganda

I think some of y'all would really benefit from learning the scope of power of various political offices.

Are you trying to tell me my local schoolboard doesn't have the ability to declare a unilateral ceasefire with iran?

If they try hard enough and are pure of heart... still no.

Well, they can declare anything they want.

imagine a goat with a hat

STOP-

what hat did you give the goat what is the instinctual hat you gave to this goat

inferentialdistance

Wizard hat.

Straw hat

Some sort of cowboy hat but not any kind I can find pictures of online so I donʼt know more specific.

intimate-mirror

One key thing the mtg color pie does wrong is that interaction with the stack is almost entirely siloed to Blue.

It is simply too big a part of the game to make sense belonging to just a single color.

It should instead be more like what red has with damage: the best color, with other colors needing to meet special criteria or follow specific archetypes in order to do it.

As is often the case*, this is a problem that cannot be fixed now.

#*devoid and instant should have been supertypes

Huh, why supertypes? I can almost see it but I’m not sure why that’s preferable to abilities. I do agree that Instant should have either been a supertype or “a Sorcery with Flash”.

Also, color pie shifts more than type line; I think stack manipulation is fixable.

intimate-mirror

Well it would be taking the place of flash:

Instant Sorcery

Instant Creature

Instant Enchantment

Basically, because instant/flash has a big effect on how the card works with the core rules and can apply to any type, it makes sense to be a supertype.

Yeah, I agree that does work better for Instant. I just donʼt have a good intuition for when something should be a supertype vs. a characteristic-defining ability. I know MaRo agrees with you about Devoid (or at least considers its current form a mistake and thinks a supertype might be better) but Iʼm not sure I follow the reason why; the other suggestion of just writing it out seems better if it shouldnʼt be a keyword.

eightyonekilograms

In waiting room before medical appointment, TV screen going through slides of various health flotsam and jetsam, one slide is “MYTH or FACT: temporary stroke symptoms don’t require medical attention”.

Having trouble picturing a guy experiencing stroke symptoms and going, “well, my face is numb and I can’t speak or move my left arm, but it’s temporary so I probably don’t need to tell anyone about this.”

Sometimes they donʼt require medical action. But someone with more medical knowledge than you should probably pay enough attention to figure that out.

(I had half my face go numb at one point and it made it hard to speak, but by the time I was able to see a doctor it had cleared up and the doctor said it was probably nothing based on what else was going on at the time. Sure enough, I donʼt think Iʼve had any problems about it since.)

intimate-mirror

One key thing the mtg color pie does wrong is that interaction with the stack is almost entirely siloed to Blue.

It is simply too big a part of the game to make sense belonging to just a single color.

It should instead be more like what red has with damage: the best color, with other colors needing to meet special criteria or follow specific archetypes in order to do it.

As is often the case*, this is a problem that cannot be fixed now.

#*devoid and instant should have been supertypes

Huh, why supertypes? I can almost see it but I’m not sure why that’s preferable to abilities. I do agree that Instant should have either been a supertype or “a Sorcery with Flash”.

Also, color pie shifts more than type line; I think stack manipulation is fixable.

DNS / HTTPS question:

I believe that when you go to

domain.tld/path

The only part that's unencrypted is "domain.tld" - the "path" specifier is hidden from every part in the chain between your browser and the machine that decrypts the message.

What about subdoman?

subdomain.domain.tld/path

I can see design arguments both for and against encrypting the subdomain, but I'm curious what actual they ended up going with?

For example, would this be a problem?

secret.domain.tld

EDIT

Post cancelled for two reasons

A - Stackoverflow actually good for once A - 1 - https://stackoverflow.com/questions/13017118/ A - 2 - Subdomain sent as plaintext in SNI

B - Question out of date anyway B - 1 - Server_Name_Indication#Encrypted_Client_Hello B - 2 - https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9849/

It's still merely "Proposed Standard" but (a) it's already seeing widespread adoption and (b) people seem to believe it will definitely become actual standard.

Careful with B though, because the DNS still knows you checked the subdomain (it has to; subdomains often have different IP addresses) and, if you don’t use encrypted DNS, so does everyone eavesdropping.

Also, if the subdomain does have a different IP address, it is easy to work backwards from the IP you are connecting to. That doesn’t apply if something is hosted by Amazon or Google or Microsoft, but can if people do their own hosting or insist on buying a dedicated IP.

i like to imagine how people in the post-material-scarcity future would romanticise the current time period.

having a job gave people a sense of community and purpose lacking in our modern age where nobody is forcing you to get out of bed on threat of starvation. actually the average office worker in the early 21st century was so much wealthier than a UBI-having-modern if you forget to count paying rent and also make some very bad purchasing power conversions. if you look at contemporary records (sitcom where the main characters are only at work when it's plot relevant) it is obvious that employment was never really a major obstacle to having an active social life or pursuing your own passions.

Honestly I have a lot of...concerns about how a post scarcity society would work in relation to the things that I love. But I hope having to give up things like tv and pop culture and toys makes them happier

why would a post-scarcity society have to give up those things? what do you think post-scarcity means?

I mean, cartoons are probably going to end up "reduced" to Glitch Productions type things, like 10 minutes of animation every 6 months. There's just no way to produce 20 minutes of quality animation on a weekly or even a monthly basis in a world where no one has an incentive to work on an idea that isn't theirs.

Why would anyone choose to do inbetweens on someone else's cartoon, when they have no financial or occupational obstacles to just working on their OWN cartoon? Animation takes dozens or hundreds of people to do to current quality and a lot of it is a really shit job to get stuck with.

The same goes for things like toys and collectables. Who is going to CHOOSE to make someone else's dolls all day when anyone with the skill or the talent is 100% fo the kind of person who would just be making their OWN dolls in miniscule batches.

Remove employment from the equation and I just don't see any reason why ANYONE would do large entertainment projects at current scale. And even if they did, most of them would crumble under the fact that the entire workforce can and will just leave at any possible moment, right?

This isn't a dig, or a gotcha, it's just the thought I constantly have when this concept comes up

i think you're imagining 'nobody needs a job to survive' but 'post scarcity' is a stronger postulate than that, and implies something like e.g. if i have an idea for a doll or a tv show it can trivially be mass produced (generally under the assumption that we can automate almost all things that nowadays require human labour)

We're uhh...kind of already starting to try and do that automation step.

and the results are not great.

we've been doing the automation thing for centuries and I would describe the results as nothing short of amazing.

Sure but the automation of ANIMATION would require the use of generative AI. Which I reject out of hand in anything related to art. Ever.

Don't care if its local, don't care if its "ethical". If it uses AI. It's not art, by definition.

Why? We'd been using computers in art for decades before generative AI came along. What kind of definition of art says a human using a computer to help manifest their artistic vision stops being art specifically when genai is involved?

And, granting they are not art, why should someone care? Why is it better that a tv show be made by dozens of people working long hours for shitty pay instead of a computer, in a world where those people don't even want the job in the first place?

I would rather give up animation ENTIRELY than allow every show to have one FRAME of Generative AI in it.

Everything that a computer "does" for an animator, the animator still has to do. A self smoothing brush is not the same as generating an entire inbetween image, it remove any possible artistic intention or creation from the act. And without artistic intention, something cannot be art. If people don't want to make art at our current scale, or don't want to make art at ALL. That is UNIVERSALLY better than pretending to call the things that computers spit out "art"

But there obviously can be artistic intention in works that use AI. There's a human saying what they want to do, to whichever level of granularity they care to. Someone who scripts an entire tv show but doesn't decide the placement of every object in the scene has obviously still had an artistic intention. Someone who takes a photograph of a forest does not pick the position of every leaf and twig, but nevertheless we recognise that can be art.

If people don't want to make art at our current scale, or don't want to make art at ALL. That is UNIVERSALLY better than pretending to call the things that computers spit out "art"

Why?

Pretty sure pre-2020 animation software could already generate entire inbetween frames. The frames could then be manually adjusted but that’s also true of AI-generated frames. In this specific case there is really no difference; the reason tweening is a shit job is because it doesn’t require much artistic intention.

In a more general case, even if I accept the premise that artistic intention is a valuable substance at most proportional to human effort, there are lots of parts of animation (or doll-making or…) that are lots of parts that are high human effort and low artistic intention. And these are exactly the parts people will want to automate away. Right now people automate away the fun parts and not as much the boring parts, for technical and economic reasons that don’t continue to be true if you improve the technology and drastically alter the economy.

The first-of-its-kind incident involved OpenAI's GPT-5.6 Sol and another unreleased model

eightyonekilograms

I think this one deserves a

intimate-mirror

It’s theoretically possible we’ll start doing evals in a better-sandboxed environment. I bet modern AI can’t reliably cross an air gap with a Faraday cage without preparing something on each side.

Untitled. Wait... Curse you, Russell! @daniel-r-h - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag