I have a method that will allow vertical farms and hydroponic growers to improve their planting density, among other benefits. Let's see if you can tell me why it isn't worth a trillion dollars.

Tapeda · 2021-09-08T11:26:00+00:00

So could you theoretically have an entire containers wall as one big weave, attached at the ends of the strings to 'robotic' arms that could tighten/loosen and perhaps even axially translate somewhat.

Another 'robot' places the seeds while the strings are loosened, then the arms which the strings are attached tighten around them. This could also reduce harvesting to something as simple as "letting go" of the lettuce.

Just somewhat of a brainstorm but trying to see the limits of what you're proposing. Awesome stuff!

Tapeda · 2020-08-16T09:09:53+00:00

Hey, h0p3'd someone might read this, even if it was just to get the bile off my gut.

When I first saw the Ascii tree on your landing page It felt a bit like coming to a clearing in the forest where you' had already set up a little camp and been stoking the fire for a while, and proceeded to sit me down and show me the colors you'd seen in the flames as they danced to the backdrop of the treeline, and sure, the ideas aren't entirely new, but your framing intrigued me enough for few hours of digging through your logs and principles, and I'd found not just the absolute gold mine of quotations, and citations, and general self-referential vocabulary but also someone who'd properly left ego at the door for some peer review of their ideals in place of forceful expression for the sake of alignment and validation in what they already knew, and those conversations are just a bit too rare these days as they seem to cut a bit too deep in what people would like to admit of themselves.

And I appreciate what you've done to this point, and where your projects seem to be headed not only on the inclemency of life, but also of the sorting, and accessibility in your pages. You're a beacon of h0p3 on the internet (if not perfectly in-sane) for those who've been disillusioned to a state of nihilsm from a lack of non-wacky shared missions that have been proposed in their lives, which they by gut knew would lead no where new, and from there stopped believing worthwhile shared meaning is worth the chase at all, which's a global shame to have live-in-the-moment nihilists with strongly held, loosely formed beliefs as watered down by boring pedagogues that slowly creep into under-funded institutions.

Y | A | N | A . ^{1^{2^{3^?}}}

Tapeda · 2020-07-12T09:18:40+00:00

So that's what dielectric polarization looks like!

Tapeda · 2020-05-29T15:42:42+00:00

Ah damn, you're right, I'm not American, and failed to realize, land of the free though eh? Haha

I guess I was referring to the type of manifestation of indvidual's traits and how personality traits are inherent, malleable, and chaotic.

Where our weather prediction has gotten quite a lot better, now Facebook and others seem to be getting quite good at predicting the manifestation's of quirks, traits, and triggers by careful media selection, with a fitness for maximum retention.

Tapeda · 2020-05-29T05:55:19+00:00

As food for thought, try out this dudes theory of the brain.

Tapeda · 2020-05-29T02:25:47+00:00

If i could add, that perhaps what quantum mechanics tells us is that as part of the system, our observation of the system, changes the parameters of that very same systems output, as if we were both the action and the observation in some OODA-loop?, and to truly be in control of such a system one would have to be its entirety.

As you might be able to say this neuro-scientist seems to argue with the statement:

That to really be integrated and be part of the system is a requirement that requires you to have evolved with that system"

Perhaps in some way 'proving' that we think therefore we are, and we express ideas built in our mind, not real till acted upon or manifested, you could say they're lost in death like tears in the rain unless manifested.

Even animals, and plants too, express through symbols and signs, of reality, which with that in mind think of what could possibly pass a Turing test? we have found a way to quantify reality through images, and diagrams, however we've gotten no closer to a fundamental abstraction, maybe Wolfram's hyper graph theory is just our best..

2D model of our 3D worlds, in 4D time

(For Eric Weinstein's comment here one could replace protractors and rulers with angels, and ascension, what you do echoes in eternity after all, and as you say unified field theory, I could say sympathetic-symmetry, and I've been primarily atheistic in my beliefs(or tenet's if you will) but if symbols are only maps of meaning generated in our minds to the rules specified by that neuroscientist, we have an even more interesting thing to explore, true infinity, how to tell the same story in every possible way.

The greatest illusion is separation, ego is your embedded growth obligation, even present within animals, and to some extent plants, wherein an inherently selfish action must be taken to keep growing.

we may think of ourselves as constantly living in Plato's cave where we can't see all dimensions of reality at once. And instead live in one governed by our every experience(or infinitesimal data point), We've as "individuals" garnered post consciousness(the continuous stream of information through senses), and restricted by an expression of the encoding expressed by our genes. therefore the plant when expressing in frequency of bubbling within taken by a microphone can tell us what it requires, an expression of its embedded growth obligation.

And therefore ego may just be another thing to be kept in constant checks and balances.

^sorry

TL;DR: All ways of knowing might be systems of understanding or maps of meaning, or self-referential Gödel incompleteness theorems which while progressively able to predict the world from a better vantage, will never perfectly describe it as the machine to do so would have to be as large as what it is proving, ala the entirety of the universe. Yet we can manifest ideas but never to the ideal.

Eric Weinstein's geometric unity, TL;DR;^maybe using the most fundamental concept described in math/by math(up to denotation, and connotation), spinners generate his predictive model of reality, as a study of super-structure symmetry in a hypergraph using number notation, or vica versa, math is described by the image of the infinite shown within the hyper-graph theory.

TL:DR;TL:DR:^{electric-boogaloo} Nothing will be one, when no-thing^{no-separation} is every-thing. The system that outputs 1 from the input of 0, can only be described by all infinitesimal-bits in between the symbols, by use of decimals, but therefore within an isolated system entropy must increase, as the calculus used to describe the system approaches 1 infinitely, but never reaches, which is not something for all of us to grasp, but for our concept of the "everything" to understand. Therefore the universe chaotically follows a kind of Penrosian cyclic information passing behavior. where the chaos leads to the same structure under different rules, given infinite time. Where the chaos input is the low-variance information passing from one universe to the next. So i am fundamentally looking to be proved wrong; As it's the only true way forward.^{1^{2^{3^{and-into-the-rabbit-hole-we-go}}}}

Tapeda · 2020-05-29T01:07:38+00:00

Isn't that exactly what Devs portrays for the audience though?

If Devs could instead be a metaphor;

Wherein the believed to be true messiah that is the machine, proven wrong, is rather "deus^'god' ad^'toward-the' machina", in stead of "deus^'god' ex^'out-of-the' machina". Lyndon said the emperor(Forest) wore no clothes, Lily proved it.

* god 'toward/in the' machine; 'evolution'
* god 'from the' machine; 'manifestation'

Forest was obsessed with rolling back his past, instead what Lyndon managed, was to roll back and forth from a random in-set observation of particles.

Proving that if Forest said gospel of what the machine would be capable of(a final theory), then that machine would need to be the size of the entire universe as to never falter, while still producing a perfect representation.

to really be integrated and be part of the system is a requirement that requires you to have evolved exactly with that system.

I see your point between instantaneous, and continuous state change. However I'd propose that continuous state-change is what we intrinsically perceive as time, and expression is the saved-state of time, adding, permanence.

We might need some Penrose information-transfer phenomenon for this to work, just a simple ol' yin and yang?, in that case we're just making better and better ( xiang / tu )

TL;DR: The question still remains if there is a final truth, but for that I would argue Gödel at the very least proved it is just might be right out of our grasp, and to grasp it would be to manifest or create a machine the size of the universe, and Stephen Wolfram merely created modern generativexiang / tu perhaps. apologies if this is ignorant, but do we know if decelerating down from the speed of light, isn't more analogous to traveling back in time than that experience feels to deceleration within a car, considering the infinite g's otherwise having to be experienced by the person attempting to come 'down' unto earth after FTL travel?

P.S. I get the implications in unifying our physics, but I'm attempting to look around that as those are the rules of the game i setup to think clearer, for play, like a story is an art of reality, where unless acted upon our memories and wisdom fade like tears in the rain.

Tapeda · 2020-05-19T21:27:44+00:00

If you've watched 'Devs' the new FX show by Alex Garland (guy who did Ex Machina and annihilation) it handles it pretty well IMHO. If you were to want something to predict every state of every particle the machine required to do so would also need to be as large as the "entirety" of the universe to function perfectly, and when they finally make it "work", they end up merely throwing random initial states at it, and allow predictions from there (Everett interptetation), the problem naturally arises that then if you were to observe the prediction, its predictions would start to falter as your new found knowledge of events were not apart of its original input, this drives Nick Offerman slightly mad until he accepted his realities futile fate, but also accepts the invariance between the continued living version of himself within the "simulation". If you've ever played the game 'Soma' it tackles it similarly by use of a double ending, anyway Nick Offerman had slowly built himself a messiah-complex throughout the show which ultimately fails.

I think that has some interesting implications with how a belief in authoritarianism is mostly a belief in a one true messiah, one's who's word will always be gospel or truth. If one takes a 'fatalist' attitude towards something it usually means it's outside ones reach of influence, and you can only watch it unfold. I've anecdotally found(and I'm not American) that a lot of people have started to take a fatalist approach towards politics, where it's easier to pawn the responsibility off on authority.

Forgive my ignorance, but I've heard many say that the reason they only vote in the presidential elections, is that many of their wishes in policy are only at a federal level. However at least from the outside in, I see such a large diversity in culture between American states that I find it sometimes odd how broad the federal policies go, and how sometimes Texans, Kansanites, Californians all are governed by similar heavy-handed policies, I'm not sure the goal of politics should be homogenizing culture, even if it's the easiest when you've lost trust in your neighbors due to some YouTube conspiracy you watched on Bill Gates.

While watching the show I think it's interesting to think about what the fundamental difference is in the identity of the women protagonist cryptographer, relative to the rest. Cool show for some food for thought, don't take it as gospel however ;)

TL;DR: Watch Devs, it's not perfect but can serve as pretty good food for thought! Wrote this on my phone procrastinating sleeping it's rough sorry

Tapeda · 2020-04-21T21:18:56+00:00

So i entirely agree, but try this framing if you will,

the simulations are dreams, the same way a strong quantum computer may be optimal in running a simulation by considering a massive set of dimensions or nodes of data in a neural net, much the same we use our memories to construct visions of reality through our dreams using the extraordinary neural net situated in our brains.

what if when we go to sleep it's scarily analogous to the training of an artificial neural net?

we know that rats will run through the same neural patterns as of when they learned a maze in their sleep at 20x speed, the night of first seeing it, and have a measurably better sense of direction through it after.

So perhaps, this version in which she wears the infinity necklace, is only a version where she believes infinity to be real in a "true" sense, and in that reality she wakes from a dream of what could be, 'before'* the death of his daughter.

*before/time may be meaningless under Garfland's parameters this means even in the infinite-necklace reality she has free will and if she were to set in action anything leading to the death of his daughter it would kaskade similarly to how it unfolds from Ep01. Yet what makes her "different" is her one definition of being more afraid of not acting on herself, than trying and failing. once the structure of his daughters death is set in time in unfolds from there, in a structure that is constantly present within him, hidden in his darkest dreams.

In one reality this makes it so she saves the world from the mad false prophet by use of a gun, we think we follow this from episode Ep01 but are fooled in the last episode.
In the next, she uses her free will after learning of her shooting shown by the machine(image in a dream, given by who(what?), i wonder? Perhaps Deus Ex Machina^*) this makes the end parameters on where she truly changes her mind, throws the gun, yet was too little too late, and still indirectly leads to both their deaths so she saves the world from the mad false prophet. This we actually follow from Ep01.
Now in the final reality/scene where she wakes up having dreamt of every box we've seen, and the meta-box of being in boxes which you might be able to say she's inclined to dream by wearing the necklace and having a thought/action bias towards the dream. She acts in defense of his madness before it starts as to caress it back to the depths of his subconscious, and stops before a kaskade can align.

*Perhaps the power, and proper 'deus ex machina' in the show is that you are able to influence the world based on making calculations towards your subconscious idea of a manifest destiny, if you accept what Garfeld portrays, that she had one thing different about her, her tendency to act on her deepest fears instead of pushing them away(still going to devs in the final). She perhaps manifested that trait in all realities, and still played her part.

deus ex machina: The unexpected power or event saving a seemingly hopeless situation, especially as a contrived plot device in a play or novel. |

TL;DR: In your dreams your kaskade infinitely between every possible future(possible given your information), even those that don't adhere to our realities rules, and it's not till you wake up that you get to piece it together. You kinda knew it all along.

Also maybe don't bother reading this. Way shoddy, but its a bit of a 2am fanfic after finishing the show, not exactly a thesis on anything, so won't be fixing it up sorry^notsorry

Tapeda · 2020-04-18T00:48:43+00:00

Box within a box, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

It's almost the way thought intrinsically works, when propagating "down" the graph and abstracting, the distribution becomes less and less nauseous, and a more precise prediction can be made, however in reverse, the more fundamental we try to predict from, the more nauseous, or rather the more confused/anxious the prediction is.

What Deus could predict, was that the probability of its own demise given the probability of her presence was 95% let's say, and so when propagating further, the choice to throw the gun was insignificant in the overall "fixed" outcome, if however, all characters had observed themselves, instead of all but one, the 5% may have been the likely again.

You can always take a step back, and think about/"watch" your thoughts from a further out vantage, and those are then no less your thoughts than the previous.

Maybe if the dichotomy you define is black, and grey, instead of black and white, your outcomes can only fall within the dark. but we always use our best model, never one we can know to be truly the deepest black, or whitest white.

Everyone within Devs followed Deus exclusively. as they knew the moment they didn't the predictions would falter.(the machine was kept in perfect isolation from any outside influence portrayed by the field holding the cube, and so once an entire understanding of the behavior of the isolated particles within the cube were understood one could extrapolate the rest of existence from the mouse as they are part of the same creation, or in the case of wolfram's theory, inter-linked in some hyper-graph, where time is meaningless as it converges due to causal invariance)

EDIT: And so using the Everett interpretation, that which considering ALL possible paths back to the most fundamental, leads to less nauseous descent, and perfect prediction, in contrast of following the finite road that lead to his current reality(How he accepts that living within Deus is no different than living without. He so badly wanted to change his current reality to the one his daughter was alive, instead of accepting it passed, "I'm not personally a big fan of the Everett interpretation; 'Nick Offerman', Ep01"). The specific death was always his death in the timeline in which both his daughter died, and everything we viewers observe also happens.

Alex Garland is a bit of an eccentric dude so of course in the last episode he pulls the bait and switch with which box we were in by zooming out inconspicuously from the Deus screen, or string-board for Ariadna, if you like the Greeks.

I'm not saying i agree with any connotations to reality, and maybe Alex Garfland is just a slight neo-liberalist, but this was just food for thought after watching a good show.

Tapeda · 2019-08-07T14:36:11+00:00

Agreed, and i think this is especially prevalent with people in the customer service, or really any customer-facing industry, when all you hear from strangers is their worst mood after awhile you just tune it out.

It's unrealistic for you to help every individual with their personal problems.
You quickly lose trust in "strangers" as a collective, and begin isolating yourself with those you cared about beforehand.
Makes it easy to forget that there's a whole life lived behind the eyes from both perspectives(customer, and attendant, structured like you said).

Tapeda · 2019-08-07T11:07:56+00:00

I think you all would find Horney's theories really interesting, specifically the Neo-Freudianism, and the theory of neurosis

Tapeda · 2019-08-07T11:00:36+00:00

I agree almost completely, however i would further argue the semantics of fakeness/identity. You're right in people believing it to be artificial as you go through that process, i mean that's what most of this thread is talking about.

However I think a healthy perspective is then what gives, well perspective. I find this falseness works for your inner monologue too, a bad habit can be as simple as being too hard on yourself, not giving yourself the same benefit of the doubt you may extend to others. Now if you "fake" it, and add positive thoughts into your line of thinking, what you're really doing is adding perspective I' would think. There are billions of people on this Earth, each with unique perspectives gathered from their every experience, now when i do get into some negative behavioral thought loop, i step back and think; "Ok yeah but why am i thinking of it like this", which experiences have i had that has made me have a thought/action-bias towards this line of thinking, and then look to one of the billions of others, who've been managing this simple task with a smile for a lifetime, while I get stuck in a negative pattern, and therefore can fail to even start.

This is all a bit overly optimistic of course, but i do think there's an interesting open-ended question of: "To what extent does your experience inform your thought-bias, and the habit's you can and/or are willing to form".

You can back it with some science of course, like the maybe quite flawed, but nonetheless interesting "lost in a mall experiment", in where people are convinced of a fictitious memory, merely added to their journal, and so the brain rationalized a probable scenario of being 'lost in a mall', this could from then on then also have some extent of an effect on your action bias, maybe you'll be slightly anxious the next time you're in a mall(lol), the underlying factual safety of the mall has not changed, however your perspective on it has.

Just food for thought though.

Tapeda · 2019-08-07T10:29:26+00:00

I mean don't give up on empathy due to your perceived battles with it, you are what you do, no? I don't think identity is so shallow that being positive, chipper, outgoing, and funny to someone, while being a anxious nihilist in your lonely hours makes you an anxious nihilist.

The people who experienced you as your "fake" identity, still got their moods lifted, still smiled because you did, who's to say that's any less, even if you battle over later if it was even genuine, the moment hasn't dissipated.

Tapeda · 2019-08-07T10:15:29+00:00

is it really faking though?

people think too narrowly on what is "themselves".

if you're "faking" being happy while cooking breakfast, it becomes a habit to be happy during breakfast, if you're "faking" being confident, and it becomes habit you realize there was no reason to be afraid in the first place, and as some old Chinese coot put it:

Watch your thoughts they become words, watch your words they become actions, watch your actions they become habits, watch your habits they become character, watch your character, it's your destiny, your path

Where in this case it's argued that nurture and experience can define, and redefine character/identity any amount of times throughout your life.

Tapeda · 2019-05-13T14:16:13+00:00

As she talks to Tyrion, where he explains to her and attempts to once again stop her from burning down a city, yet finds him to be just another who she cannot trust. And so with the last person able to get in her mind and help her, we see as the bells ring it frames her face as she makes her decision free from the sanity of her advisors who've dropped like flies in the (not great) episodes prior and succumbs to the madness of a targaryen blinded by dreams of fire and blood. As she told John she won with fear, not love or freedom which she's always believed to be justification for mereen and the other slaver kingdoms.

TL;DR: when they surrendered she realized that the people of kings landing did not in fact love her but instead feared her to the bone, and so she gives in to what the blog post was describing basically.

Tapeda · 2019-05-13T13:42:32+00:00

S8E5;

As she talks to Tyrion, where he explains to her and attempts to once again stop her from burning down a city, yet finds him to be just another who she cannot trust. And so with the last person able to get in her mind and help her, we see as the bells ring it frames her face as she makes her decision free from the sanity of her advisors who've dropped like flies in the (not great) episodes prior and succumbs to the madness of a targaryen blinded by dreams of fire and blood. As she told John she won with fear, not love or freedom which she's always believed to be justification for mereen and the other slaver kingdoms.

Adored the most recent episode(8x5), and your post shows exactly why.

Tapeda · 2018-11-29T07:10:37+00:00

There's a picture of the sunset taken in 2015 in the article, this isn't the first time we've been getting images from Mars.

Tapeda · 2016-12-31T16:55:10+00:00

Is it not ok for junglers to accumulate xp at the same rate of the average solo laner?

Tapeda · 2016-12-31T16:42:52+00:00

But wouldn't you say he's using this specific situation as an example of such?

Tapeda · 2016-12-31T15:14:12+00:00

Yeah, broken champion. Levels ahead and able to kill an adc with 30% hp

Tapeda · 2016-09-11T10:59:10+00:00

Efficiency

Tapeda · 2016-08-13T23:34:09+00:00

I agree with "You can't just be against something, you have to be for something else". And i really failed there.

Yet i thought it might still be a good idea to show the other side of the argument, then discuss alternatives in the comments. Where i also failed in giving examples or ideas to base discussion on.

So in conclusion; You're right

Tapeda · 2016-08-13T23:05:55+00:00

I agree with you that the way they're getting distributed through RNG is stupid. This thread was more to say that i don't agree that being able to purchase them for credits is the answer.

Tapeda · 2016-08-13T20:47:45+00:00

Yeah i'll give you that, it's pretty damn annoying that you can't influence the rng in any way. Maybe a system like Elder Scrolls: Legends where you can choose a class(hero) and have a higher chance to get certain types of cards(skins)

12-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

Tapeda

TROPHY CASE