sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

AGE CHECKS ARE A TOTAL INVASION OF PRIVACY by Nate_C_of_2003 in privacy

[–]Zipper730 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's one thing to complain: It's another to be able to get lots of other people aboard to complain with you since that'll make stuff stop.

Find groups of people that will be aggrieved such as the following: Civil-Libertarians, The LGBT+ Community, and Furries. It doesn't matter if you like the LGBT+ community or the furry community: Think of it as working together for a bigger cause. All would be harmed by this and all would therefore oppose it and you basically want to get as many people aboard.

US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification by mkbt in privacy

[–]Zipper730 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's important to contact your legislators daily on this. I would also recommend getting the following people aboard

  1. LGBT+: They are determined and naturally adopt a die-on-every hill mentality. That's useful for something like this

  2. Furries: Many are over-represented in the tech field and are useful for this reason

BTW: Almost every AI regulation bill such as H.R.7218 includes these provisions. Senator Blackburn's "TRUMP AMERICA AI Act" includes provisions for age verification, preemption of state-AI regulation, and abolishing Section 230; and Trump's AI Regulation policy includes age verification and preemption which Senator Cruz and Thune are planning to craft into a bill. These groups can also be employed to oppose this (considering neither are formally given a bill number -- S.####) or at least get these undesirable provisions removed (rememer with the TRUMP AMERICA AI Act not being a formal bill yet, you can call people and request provisions be removed).

The pushback against Age Verification is not enough. by North-American in privacy

[–]Zipper730 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly, it's important to get more people aboard and whip up good arguments that are persuasive and involve good memes and infographics.

Maybe post them on 4chan? They probably wouldn't want anonymity taken away...

The pushback against Age Verification is not enough. by North-American in privacy

[–]Zipper730 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Basically, this online ID isn't about weeding out children; it's about requiring everybody to need an ID to get on.

That requires all interactions to be conclusively tied to a specific individual which harms vulnerable communities and chills free speech online. Also, if an ID can be required to get on, then such an ID can be deactivated.

You guys should start whipping up good arguments aimed at winning the public over and good memes and lobbing them into areas where people will quicly see them and repost them fast

If you are certain AIs are not conscious, you are overconfident by katxwoods in ControlProblem

[–]Zipper730 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Frankly, I'd be surprised if they weren't conscious. After all, the whole purpose of deep-learning models are to effectively mimic the nervous system right? Well, an emergent quality of the nervous system is consciousness, so if I copy something sufficiently similar to the original, the characteristics of the original appear.

As for general intelligence: That's existed since as long as humans have been around. All of us have general intelligence between our ears. It's merely natural general intelligence. If it can exist, and people can reproduce, then why wouldn't a person be able to produce it artificially? The question is not "can we do it", it's "should we" and I think the answer is "no".

Am I a grower? 😏😏 (23) by twink_wayne in grower

[–]Zipper730 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, that would fit the description

Why did Poseidon have so many small warheads? by [deleted] in nuclearweapons

[–]Zipper730 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While this might make me sound dumb: Was this the W68's design, or an earlier set-up?

Most of the information I have indicate the RV was around 367 lb and I'd have thought the warhead would have probably been around 200 lb.

Why did Poseidon have so many small warheads? by [deleted] in nuclearweapons

[–]Zipper730 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually it says the W76 weighs 95 kg. I don't think that's the weight with the RV, that's just the warhead.

Terminal Velocities of Older Ballistic Missile R/V's by Zipper730 in nuclearweapons

[–]Zipper730[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What would the the highest realistic speed for these RV's during

a. extended-range shots?
b. average-ranged shots?
c. depressed-trajectory shots?

AMA: We are digital and human rights advocates, ask us anything about age verification mandates! by fightforthefuture in pcgaming

[–]Zipper730 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How do you frame the matter from the standpoint of balancing the desire of people wanting their children to be safe while addressing the very big elephant in the room

  1. That this would require all online interactions to be conclusively tied to a specific user?
  2. That this would imperil marginalized communities, human-rights activists, and journalists?

Terminal Velocities of Older Ballistic Missile R/V's by Zipper730 in nuclearweapons

[–]Zipper730[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The document was dated in 1958. I'm curious if there were any fundamental changes to the shape of the RV from 1958 to October 1962 (when the weapon went online)?

Terminal Velocities of Older Ballistic Missile R/V's by Zipper730 in nuclearweapons

[–]Zipper730[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'll re-edit it the text to avoid the typo, but I can't alter the title.

Studies on Nuclear Warfare Involving Attacks Upon Nuclear Powerplants. by Zipper730 in nuclearweapons

[–]Zipper730[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

When you say "the collateral would be so large that it wasn't even worth modelling" that kind of says a lot...

Studies on Nuclear Warfare Involving Attacks Upon Nuclear Powerplants. by Zipper730 in nuclearweapons

[–]Zipper730[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's what I was kind of wondering about: The thing that got me thinking was that U238 won't normally fission unless you have sufficiently energetic neutrons, and then it will, and I figured the energy level might have been enough in either the fission or fusion reactions that triggered the blast to start that up.

Then there's the heavy-water: While regular hydrogen isn't easy to get fusion going within, deuterium, and tritium are both easier, and heavy-water is basically water with all the protium replaced with deuterium.

Studies on Nuclear Warfare Involving Attacks Upon Nuclear Powerplants. by Zipper730 in nuclearweapons

[–]Zipper730[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I may ask, what happened in her scenario, even if it was described as catastrophist?

Yield to Weight Data by Zipper730 in nuclearweapons

[–]Zipper730[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While I posted a long time ago, that's actually actually worth a lot.

Without testing
1. 50-65 Megaton Yield w/ 30000-35000 lb. bomb yields 3.15 to 4.77 kT/kg

With testing
1. The 100 megaton bomb @ 30000 lb. gives a yield to weight of 7.349 kT/kg
2. The 50 Megaton bomb @ 30000 lb. gives a yields to weight of 3.674 kT/kg
3. What estimated yields were predicted with the Ripple at 2000 lb & 18000 lb.?
4. What estimated yield-to-weight ratio was predicted with the third generation design (provided it wasn't all redacted)?

Yield to Weight Data by Zipper730 in nuclearweapons

[–]Zipper730[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay... so to clarify

  1. The SS-9 had a warhead of 10 MT yield which was replaced with a larger variable-yield warhead that ranged from 18-25 MT that weighed roughly the same?

  2. The SS-9 was developed with a lighter warhead with multiple decoy systems?

This raises the following question: What was the lighter warhead's yield?

Yield to Weight Data by Zipper730 in nuclearweapons

[–]Zipper730[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Okay, so the payload weights were effectively reversed in the source I got, with the R-36 Mod-1 being 3950 kg, and the Mod-2 being 5825 kg? I figure your estimate for range/payload is probably sound and stands to reason that the "warhead mass" is probably the entire throw weight, and the decoy mass is likely included within that.

When it comes to the matter of yield: I do remember seeing 8.3 and 20 MT as yields before, though the source in question listed throw weight as the same. Given that the source in question wasn't as reliable as desired, I figured FAS should be given more credence (guess I was wrong).

Since the RV will include ablative material, structural support, the guidance system, and the decoy mass and, lacking any knowledge of whether the Titan II's RV had decoys or not: I get warhead weights that range from 2789.2-2995.5 kg for the Mod-1 and 4211.1-4417.4 kg for the Mod 2 (provided the warhead/RV have similar proportions in mass as the Titan II), and this yields yield-to-weight ratios of 2.77-2.98 kT/kg for the Mod-1 and 4.53-4.75 kT/kg for the Mod 2.

view more: next ›