I think it is spoof-resistant from the sound of it? You giving a valid proof-of-region via one of their circuit designs provides proof of your region but does not give your exact location, from the sounds of it.
I’ll get back to you after I’ve read through it.
We don’t need a blockchain for that.
Having multiple servers which store file checksums would have much less overhead, would be easily repeatable and appendable, with no need for unnecessary computational labor. Linux mint currently uses the checksum process for verifying that an ISO downloaded is not altered in any way, and it can work for any file (preferably not humongous files).
Strive for K.I.S.S. whenever possible.
For those wondering, the AI singularity is a concept in which an AI becomes intelligent enough to improve its own intelligence and does so. The idea is that it continually improves itself over and over until it reaches the highest level of intelligence possible.
It is a potential Deus Ex Machina scenario - a God from a machine.
Edit: to be clear, this is not a scientific idea, it’s not really proveable, falsifiable, or even testable in any straightforward fashion. It’s mostly a philosophical thought experiment. A hypothetical.
This convo has gone on for centuries at this point. The Brain in the Jar, the teleportation conundrum, Thesius’ ship, it’s all already been covered over and over. people like you still keep crawling out of the woodwork thinking you know better than every philosopher that already waxed over this problem ad nauseum.
Your ‘continuous self’ is just as worthless as a concept. The idea that your ‘sense of being the same person’ is being held together by being apart of your plumbing just as much of an illusion. It’s worthless.
To elaborate, you are not the brain. You are the observer, the thing which exists as a byproduct of the brain’s processes, perhaps even a process yourself within. There’s also plenty of times when you will lose time other than sleep, like concussions, getting blackout drunk, panic attacks, and after those times you have no memory of making decisions or acting in your own accord, but you were. You, the observer, were absent while the brain kept working. So where were you?
You act as though you’re sure you are still the same observer as the one who went to bed. That is completely unsubstantiated. You may have just been born into your body when you awoke today, and will only have until your body falls back asleep again before you cease to exist, replaced by another process that thinks itself is you, another observer.
And if ‘you’ one day woke up in a digital world, like our own, it’s you’d be none the wiser, because your self is simply a collection of processes and memories. It’s arbitrary. It’s all dust. There’s not some special ‘continuity’ that keeps you alive somehow.
What does maintaining continuity of consciousness look like to you? As in you are able to talk to your copy? And continue to live your normal life outside while your digital self lives their digital life?
Or are you saying you want the transition to digital to be seamless, where your digital self remembers laying in a chair, a quick pin-prick, and then they’re in the digital realm?
Keep in mind, we have zero understanding of how you’d get the meat consciousness to transition into the digital consciousness - it’s likely not even possible. The two options for copying are keep both alive or terminate the original somewhere before bringing the digital one online. There’s many ways to do both, but those are the two.
That continuity of function is arbitrary. In reality it provides people comfort in some idea of a soul but there’s nothing suggesting it actually provides anything to the continuity of consciousness.
Between every loss in time, where you stop forming memories until you wake up again, you have nothing to affirm that your current consciousness is the same as your last waking period’s. The only thing vaguely providing that illusion is your previously-formed memories, which would exist all the same on the digital mind, in theory.
Y’all are reading this as feminist? It’s literally an observation by some chicks on twitter, not some kind of feminist rhetoric.
Feminism is currently more preoccupied with dismantling the gender binary entirely, not reinforcing stereotypes like in this twitter post.
I’ve never had a wife, nor a daughter, so I can’t really say much about how forgiving they are. If this doesn’t match your lived experience, stop giving a fuck and move on.
Also Freetube has these features.
This issue is solely the fault of capitalism. By removing choice you are forced to by a more premium product, but you’re advertised it by all the supposed benefits: one less external opening on the phone, no more tangled headphones, no more dealing with headphones that only work when the cord is plugged in just right, no more chance of your headphone port going bad.
They skip over the fact that most of these issues are directly problematic because of cost cutting and designed obsolescence (aka engineered lifetimes). The opening is one thing, but headphones tangle in pockets easily because they use such thin flimsy cords. Same thing goes for cords breaking in the lining and only working at certain angles: a more robust cord would be less prone to issues.
On top of this, the entire designs of phones not having repairability in mind is the only reason that a headphone port breaking is a big deal. If they were designed to be disassembled with replacement parts being readily available, it wouldn’t be an issue. They could even make the ports more robust to decrease failure rate.
Got a bad run this time - all idiots. Gotta reroll I guess. Go get the blender back out.
Could I get an explanation on what’s happening in the gif? Is that on a train?
Was gonna say, it’s almost definitely a cost-savings measure.
Answer provided by chatGPT /s
I’ll trust that’s true, but even still, logic has never stood in the way of any legislation passing in the US or corporate decision.
I think it’s kind of hilarious some of the insanely close conclusions some ancient philosophers got to being correct.
For example, Xenophanes observed that there were fossils of fish and shells, and correctly concluded that Greece was at one point underwater. He also had a bunch of insane claims on top of that, but the underwater part was correct.
His teacher, Anaximander actually said humans came from fish, which is hilariously close to correct despite the incorrect reasoning.
Empedocles is probably the most interesting. He concluded that humans and animals originated from these disembodied organs, which found each other and would form wholes. The catch was that many weird forms came about, like people with heads in the center of their bodies, and any other creation you can think of from just slapping animal organs together. He asserted that the forms which were unfit for life died out, leaving only the ones which worked to continue living. Empedocles almost describes a concept adjacent to multicellular organisms forming from single-celled symbiotic relationships (obviously Empedocles didn’t know about bacteria or cell theory), and then goes on to pretty accurately describe the mechanisms of natural selection.
The process of collective disarming is the path towards growing past war. And that first step is the collective banning of manufacturing such weapons.
So we’re still in a limbo period with nothing actually on the market.
I know you’re correct, since there are now solid state batteries on the market which outperform liquid-electrolyte LiPo batteries, but just stating “we’re at the tipping point” without dropping any link as evidence makes your claim very unconvincing.
The first news I’ve heard is Yoshino power selling solid state power banks. here’s a video covering them.
That would be innovation, which I’m convinced no company can do anymore.
It feels like I learn that one of our modern innovations was already thought up and written down into a book in the 1950s, and just wasn’t possible at that time due to some limitation in memory, precision, or some other metric. All we did was do 5 decades of marginal improvement to get to it, while not innovating much at all.