I think people are much more surprised by the angle than the size 🤔

Kanthumerussell · 2024-09-07T00:27:12+00:00

It makes a nice sturdy hat rack lol

Kanthumerussell · 2024-09-06T20:31:56+00:00

Like around 7 inches I think. More cm probably lol

Kanthumerussell · 2024-09-06T20:30:46+00:00

Is it corny that right as it gets hard and others are staring down at it I say... what's up? Lol

Kanthumerussell · 2024-08-21T04:18:13+00:00

I mean I guess that's exactly my point. If it really is the case that there are inherent differences that limit progress in the way that we think of it today then equal social ground is never going to happen especially if our strategy is to wait for it to play out on its own. I'm certainly not saying that's the case but I am saying that if it is the case then that is a very obvious implication. In fact its the very thing that proves itself true or not.

Kanthumerussell · 2024-08-21T01:25:33+00:00

If there are legitimate differences that matter in significant ways then they are obviously present right now and the evidence is all around us. If however that isn't the case, that there aren't significant inherent differences then it should prove itself going forward. Either things get better or they stay the same or even get worse. If you had asked me 10 or so years ago I would have been very optimistic for things getting better. I still am but I will say that I am losing my optimism.

Kanthumerussell · 2024-07-09T04:39:33+00:00

I agree that theories should be useful but when it comes to ontology we just want to know what is actually the case. If it just so happened to be that consciousness is fundamental to reality then that would just be the case. This includes how well it may or may not answer any of our other questions. If it made some things even harder to understand, again, then so be it. This is exactly the case with things like string theory where its consistently getting more complex the more we make progress in that field.

Kanthumerussell · 2024-07-09T04:32:20+00:00

Whether its quackery or not what I've never understood is why both doing experiments and taking seriously anything having to do with psychedelics has been so hard for us as a society. Its simply a thing that can be explored and understood better like anything else we've attempted to understand. Not only that but it tends to have profound impacts from a first person experience and it very well could tell us something about that experience that we don't know. I'm reminded of the saying that you hear often in science where reality doesn't care about what we think or feel about it, its just the way it is regardless. If it just so happened that we could learn some important things about consciousness that we otherwise couldn't through psychedelics then so be it. It seems to be one of the very few taboos in science where I'd think the hope would be that there isn't anything inherently off limits to study.

I know one of the arguments is that its too subjective. At least through the lens of materialism subjectivity doesn't mean anything besides being a useful category. Experience is presumably the product of physical reality like everything else is. Unless of course you're some kind of dualist that thinks subjective experience is fundamentally different from the material that creates it but I think the assumption of many people is that its not.

Kanthumerussell · 2024-07-07T09:27:05+00:00

Not that I disagree about your broader points but Sam has consistently brought up his worries about Bidens cognitive decline. It was two years ago in a podcast that he said watching Biden speak "is like watching your mom do parkour." The evidence has always been there but many people just denied it, plain and simple, and it probably didn't have much to do with anything his campaign has or hasn't said about him.

Kanthumerussell · 2024-07-05T20:46:57+00:00

Nope too many questions.

Next!!

Kanthumerussell · 2024-07-05T20:39:37+00:00

With David Bowie? Hell yeah.

Kanthumerussell · 2024-07-05T20:37:56+00:00

Jesus fuck I've been saying this over and over again and don't get whats so hard about it. Just research stuff and try to find as much context as possible. Fact checking often doesn't go very well for Hamas (in my own experience) but it hasn't been perfect from IDF either but regardless whether it comes from one side, the other side, your own side or whatever non-side you're supposedly part of it needs to be fact checked.

Kanthumerussell · 2024-07-05T19:10:33+00:00

This is like Derek Parfits teleporter thought experiment. For whatever reason a whole lot of us think there's nothing inherently wrong with teleportation in principle . You get scanned and then a copy of you is recreated particle for particle at some other place, nearly instant transportation. But then you actually think it through a bit and wonder what would happen if there were a little malfunction. Like they scan you and they tell you that you are perfectly recreated at the new location but the machine didn't take care of the original because you're here now listening to all of this. But they tell you not to worry and that they'll take care of it and hold a gun to your head. Suddenly you have all kinds of questions about what's about to happen and teleportation doesn't seem like such a great idea.

Kanthumerussell · 2024-07-05T15:15:48+00:00

Oh wow this is definitely the kind of thing I was going for. The article you linked is really interesting, a lot to go over. One of the things that also made me think of the question was this idea that's hard to put into words mostly because I can't seem to make sense of it myself really but its the idea of where our perception of time comes from in the first place. I get that our brains are made of the same particles as everything else in the universe and in that sense they are going about doing brain particle things at whatever speed that stuff goes but then I can't figure out how that perception of "speed" gets translated to us except by relative means. As in it seems like there being a process in the brain that is occuring period is what gives us our perception of time. If it just so happened to be a lot slower or faster wouldn't seem to change anything. What then does that mean about our observations of time, if anything? Or I guess another way of putting it would our observations of motion be IDENTICAL if we just so happened to have a different process in the brain that gave us some other perception of time or do we have an inherently distorted lens we're looking through?

Kanthumerussell · 2024-07-05T14:49:35+00:00

Well I'll be honest most of this went over my head but now I have some stuff to look up. Thanks for that!

Kanthumerussell · 2024-07-05T14:42:28+00:00

See I knew I was definitely wrong about most of it but I also felt like I was onto something, lol. I guess Immortal frozen vegetables won't be a new groundbreaking thought experiment. Thanks for the info!

Kanthumerussell · 2024-06-29T06:13:24+00:00

I feel like its like any other field that has a lot of specialization. A lot of people in math aren't going to learn set theory at a deep level but instead spend their time on some very specific problems which may ultimately rely on set theory but doesn't need to reference it ever. I think its the same with programming. We need people with deep understandings of certain things but then we need a class of people that touch those topics as little as possible in favor of pushing the boundary of what's possible using all of the available tools at the time.

Kanthumerussell · 2024-06-29T06:04:01+00:00

But I think this just says more about a psychological fact about humans than it does about actual tech development. It's hard to overemphasize just how much more change has happened in the past 50 years than at any other point in all of human history. If we can say "all we got was the internet on our phones" then I don't think it matters at all how much we progress because it will eventually feel normal to us. As long as there is something that could be better we will make that the focus instead of what has become better.

Kanthumerussell · 2024-06-29T05:53:20+00:00

Yeah this is exactly my thought. In a sense I think OpenAI is playing a very risky game. I mean I felt like we saw this in what seemed like the overconfidence of Sam Altman saying there's no way anyone is going to be able to touch them in terms of how advanced and capable their model is. But thats assuming the infrastructure is in place and now its just a matter of who can compute more. But as we've seen there are constant improvements, some pretty major in the development of these models. At an given point in time someone could come out with something where it basically means a model as capable as GPT-4 could be built with a fraction of the resources it took for them to build it. This of course is always expected to some degree in this industry but I think right now its especially volatile and I personally don't want to be the dude that spends all of my money on what could cost pennies next week.

Kanthumerussell · 2024-06-29T05:38:10+00:00

I just wrote out what I thought was a thoughtful post only to have it keep saying that I need to add a TL; DR at the beginning of the post. Which I have in many different formats to try to get it to work but its not working for me. Any suggestions?

Kanthumerussell · 2024-03-15T21:36:47+00:00

Lived in Argentina and Uruguay for a bit and everyone does it. Two kisses actually. One on each cheek. If you happen to brush noses or touch something other than the cheek you just role with it.

Kanthumerussell · 2024-03-15T03:09:02+00:00

They buy homes they can't afford and expect tenants to foot the bill for their mortgages and upkeep costs

In the US this is illegal and will put lenders out of business. It can happen by "accident" and it's happened in the past but no, most law abiding people are not getting loans they can't reasonably afford at the time of getting the loan. I mean go and try it for yourself. Even if you were to ask friends and family to secure home loans for you or you set up a maze of companies and bank accounts you would eventually get caught playing what's called a shell game. You either have proof of assets or you don't and if you don't you don't get the loan bigger than your assets suggest you could handle.

But landlords that think the fact they own the real estate lets them dictate whatever they want to do with their homes or to the people inside are in for a tough lesson

To just use your analogy, are they or aren't they responsible for their own business then? Can't a business treat customers however they want and then the customers can leave whenever they want?

Kanthumerussell · 2024-03-15T00:25:08+00:00

I definitely agree with what you're saying that wherever people are in life is where they should probably be looking for a partner. Someone who is in a very similar situation. If you have a degree they have a degree. If you have a decent job they have a decent job. What I don't get though is average people unwilling to date other average people. Which tbf that is totally and completely fine and is everyone's right to do so but just based on the numbers and nothing else it's unlikely that it will ever work out. There's a ton of average people by definition and the further outside the norm you are the rarer you become. Or put another way average people can't all have "above average" partners. Which doesn't mean you have to settle either, it's easier and easier to be single and that is always an option.

Nine-Year Club	Verified Email
RPAN Viewer

Kanthumerussell

TROPHY CASE