Leaderboard

Without any evidence people who make medicines and study viruses and develop policies to reduce and eliminate harm from infectious diseases are accused of deliberately making and releasing serious viral sicknesses. All the virologists and immunologists and other health experts are either incompetent or in on it? I went to school with someone who's ambition was medical research - never cheated on tests and never had to and would have been appalled at the idea of making diseases so some companies and shareholders make money. Frankly I think anonymous pseudo-experts casually passing around such toxic accusations is appalling - and the evidence of that is in our faces.

Yes, basically. At very low doses most mercury can be excreted with a half life of a few days to two weeks. However, especially at higher dosages the excretion pattern becomes more biphasic with a the fast phase (i.e. <2 weeks half life) only eliminating part of the ingested mercury. The rest follows a much slower (1-2 months half life) elimination pattern. If your intake outpaces the elimination time, you start accumulating which can result in issues.

You mean neutrinos, right? (They were thought to be, but AFAIK the fact that they have mass means this isn’t exclusive.) https://neutrinos.fnal.gov/mysteries/handedness/ neutrinos turn out to be an anomaly. Other particles such as the quarks and the other three leptons (the electron, muon, and tau) have both left-handed and right-handed versions of both the matter particle and their antimatter partner. I have no idea what you mean by this. In your model they are points rotating. Nothing inherently gravitational. No interaction is described.

Thank you for a Swift and convenient End to my inquisition.

I've been learning a little about emperor Julian, the last Pagan Roman emperor. He thought Christianity was a regressive step to classical culture and advocated freedom of religion. With the hindsight of history it's hard to argue he was wrong. I used to think Greek culture was superior to Roman - until i heard Boris argue for the Greeks.

Sorry, i do tend to forget this thread is specifically about the internet and not AGI in general, or neural networks specifically, which i've been referring to. To expand your point the questions that occur to me are: Is it possible to engineer sentience into the internet? Would we want to? Is the internet subject to evolution at all - what replicates and how, what is the selection pressure (functionality as measured by human users?).

Yes exactly. I suppose you'd have to subtract the two integers and see if the result is integer-divisible by the modulus. That seems like the most sensible way. Probably not the only way.

I think it's interesting that this question always gets asked in terms of the Internet, because that's the only complex computer system people have a daily experience of. But it's far from the most complex and mysterious computer system. If any computer system were to become self-aware, my bet would be the global supply chain. The system that moves raw materials from here to component factories there to integration sites somewhere else to distribution points somewhere else and ultimately puts a finished consumer good on the shelf at your local big box store, at a price point attractive to buyers yet high enough to ensue a profit for every single actor along the chain. The global supply chain is an immensely complicated system, far more complex than the Internet, whose architecture is generally well understood. It involves maintaining just-in-time inventories, tracking taxes and tariffs across international and local borders, integration of air, sea, and land transportation, predictions of consumer demand and raw material supply, and all the rest of it. It's a system that nobody sees but that affects literally every physical thing around us, from the furniture we sit on to the food in the fridge, and the fridge itself. It touches everything. You can turn off the Internet in your home, but not the global supply chain. If the thesis is that a sufficiently complex system can become self-aware, the global supply chain would be my candidate. Not the Internet, whose architecture is simple by comparison.

😁 “…the Emperors of Blefuscu did frequently expostulate by their ambassadors, accusing us of making a Schism in Religion, by offending against a fundamental Doctrine of our great Prophet Lustrog, in the fifty-fourth Chapter of the Brundecal, (which is their Alcoran). This, however, is thought to be a meer[sic] Strain upon the Text: For the Words are these; That all true believes shall break their Eggs at the convenient End; and which is the convenient End, seems, in my humble Opinion, to be left to every Man’s Conscience, or at least in the Power of the chief Magistrate to determine.” -Gulliver

I don't think civilization ever advances as a result of religious principles being applied. The iconic fantasy of an advanced civilization visiting us is very much a literary mechanism to evidence our own imperfections. But I don't think that any actual intelligent alien species that we may find some day will respond to any of our utopian dreams. Most likely --if that ever happens--, they will be looking for resources.

Here are a couple of explanations, the first in plain English by Oxford Professor of AstoPhysics, P Ferreira The second is an excellent pdf from Baez and Bunn (the 2006 version) which is ( a bit) more mathematical https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238984245_The_Meaning_of_Einstein's_Equation

But from what you say, it is not clear that sport fishing is any more acceptable. If the people you know who go sport fishing also squash insects, then that suggests that maybe the people find squashing insects objectionable would also disapprove of sport fishing. So perhaps it is quite ethically consistent, with more barbarous people doing both and more enlightened people doing neither. But that may not be the entire explanation. There is also an emotional element involved, when one actually witnesses the killing of a creature, as opposed to just hearing someone talk of an activity they have never witnessed in person and may know little about. People don't generally like witnessing killing. It is perhaps rather bad manners to inflict on someone the spectacle of killing a creature, whether doing so is necessary or entirely gratuitous.

It is highly doubtful that the virus did not mutate after going through trillions of cells. Despite this, mutations appear slowly. This suggests that these are not mutations, but viruses created in the laboratory. They are created by countries that want to make money on them. India is a well-known country, a manufacturer of medicines. If more people got sick in the world now, India would sell more medicines. Not vaccines, but medicines, because the vaccine only works against a known virus. That is, such countries will create a bunch of viruses in laboratories to make money selling drugs. To explain why many people are sick, they "detect new strains," although in reality it may not be a coronavirus, but some other virus. AI can create any virus with a visual form of coronavirus. According to the conspiracy of the scientific community, which is also trying to make money on everything, they will not divulge the truth. Until the whole world realizes that they are lying (and the world has already realized) and until they are forced to stop earning, this nonsense will continue. And the human body develops immunity very quickly, so you can only die from several new strains in a row. Therefore, this virus is not as deadly as they say. And that is why no one risks creating new viruses.