One very interesting point by the dissenting judge is that if you accept the majority's broad interpretation of swaps, then not only are prediction markets swaps, but normal gambling is as well. Therefore all currently legal and regulated gambling is actually illegal because the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction, not the states, and none of these gambling operations are following CFTC rules.

We could try keeping the clock standardized but base things that matter relative to the time of sunrise, each day. A clock could keep track of sunrise times just as it does regular time. We would sleep an extra 1 to 2 minutes per day half the year and that much less the other half of the year. It's not enough to be uncomfortable. Just use a standard time for certain things like when payments or deals take effect and airline schedules, etc. and give sunrise time for when school or work starts and ends.

Typically in sound quality tests, you tell subjects which file is the original, then have them rate how close to the original the other samples are. In this he just gave them four samples, and had them guess which was which, turning it into a more subjective test of guessing what they think the track should like. In addition, based on the table he got a total of 1-4 responses per track, which is far too low to have any statistical significance.

This was a funny joke, but not the gotcha the article played it up to be.

This drone (an MK30) is 78 pounds, and about 6 feet diameter. They could easily kill a person if they hit a them. I think this is the fourth time I've read about their drones crashing, and all the cases seemed reasonably avoidable. They are currently operating under a special FAA license that exempts them from several rules that normal drone operators have to follow, like not requiring visual line of site. Given their safety record so far, I think that license should be revoked, and they can go back to a normal commercial license, until they have proven their operations to be safe again.

Oh dear god. Now I am visualizing competitors finding ways to make their skin floppy in places so it parachutes out like a flying squirrel. Are you happy now?

I, Steve Wozniak, did not participate in the theft of the BASIC. It was funny to me to see others enjoying doing this. I had never used BASIC myself, at that time, only the more-scientific languages like Fortran, Algol, and PL-1, and several assembly languages. I sniffed the air and sensed that you needed BASIC to sell computers into homes, because of the book 101 Games in BASIC. I loved games and saw games as the key. It was the [MS] BASIC that inspired me to write a BASIC interpreter for my 6502 processor, in order to have a more useful computer.

> I don't see what would be different than if he'd pasted the text into Google Docs or Word 365 to make some edits.
Government employees are prohibited from using those public cloud services for OUO as well. There are separate instances of some of these services like Office 365 which can be used for OUO, but they are kept separate for defense in depth, given these services can have bugs that allowed people to access documents they should be allowed to.

Furthermore, it is worse because the TOS for ChatGPT state that they can and will use your inputs for training, unlike Google Docs or Word 365 (at least in the past - I haven't checked recently).

He had access to AI systems that were approved for OUO, and then on top of that given special permission to use the public ChatGPT for non-sensitive documents, but chose to use public ChatGPT for OUO documents. That would be a security incident for any clearance holder, and is completely inexcusable for the head of CISA.

It's hard to find people with Tim Berners-Lee's integrity. We should 'own' our own lives. It's a lot deeper than just being watched.

The argument of whether or not a virus is alive or a paramecium, for example, is absurd.
It's not something that is or isn't, it's how do you want to use the word?

To me, this calls for either multiple words or one word with types thereof or with parameters (my preference).

Biologists might say life is an autonomous entity that replicates itself with a small number of mutations.
This makes sense in terms of evolutionary life, of course.
Still, you have to ask what constitutes an "entity"--perhaps a set of spatially correlated components and perhaps add adjacency where the majority remains correlated between adjacent moments.

However, I feel a broader definition might better be an autonomous entity driven by value judgments through learning.
The entity, in this case, must be virtually correlated elements but otherwise the same as for evolutionary life above.
Being driven by value judgments through learning differentiates from a mere machine that is driven by logical/mechanical rules.
Life in this regard might not be evolutionary but has intrinsic free will and intelligence through learning to balance what is likely against what is desirable.

Free Will, in this context, is exploration for the derivation of options and the ability to weight them against each other (based on likelihood multiplied by efficacy).
Desirability here is the sum of likelihoods multiplied by efficacy along a path of options. A donut has high positive efficacy but walking through cold rain to get it has negative efficacy. The likelihood is high if the weatherforcast is bad and you know the donut shop is open. So desirability is efficacy of cold rain (say -23) multiplied by trust in weather forcast + efficacy of eating donut (say +80) multiplied by trust that the donut shop is actually open.

This broader definition of life not necessarily evolutionary is useful not only in that it can include some forms of AI agents but also hypothetical entities in the natural world that are non-evolutionary or not comprised of adjacent components--say a gas cloud entity or one made of a set of non-adjacent stars. This seems unlikely but what if we found such a thing? It would be relevant and fascinating. It could be that some class of such thing exists and operates and we have been completely unaware. Maybe it lives backwards through time instead of forward? Maybe the chaos of the universe from the Big Bang has patterns that unify such an entity across spacetime in some unique way. Chaos theory does allow for such possibilities. I am not claiming to know of any but arguing we have no reason to close the door on the possibilities.

Of more importance to me, however, is the difference between life and a mere machine. A mere machine being driven by logic/mechanics has no intent of its own. It has no desire or aims. It merely reacts to rules. It is mindless. However, an agent driven by value-judgments has intent and desire. It chooses the most preferable path forward that is itself a literal belief (more or less) that it will achieve or avoid a certain outcome. If, however, environmental conditions lead to an inability to find such paths (predictable and preferable--inability to weigh them against each other) then it has no freedom and therefore no life. In layman terms, if you have no choices or no way to guess which choice is better than another then you have no cause for doing anything and you will mentally die. Or, you will mentally die if your challenges are either too hard or too easy. Life is about learning and making value-judgments based on that learning. That is not biological life but it is the life of a mind.

Sure, a mind is also build on a machine but it is more than a mere machine.

They are no longer required to fully fund pensions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

My understanding has long been that:
- vocational schools are for specific job skills
- academic schools are for well rounded learning
- A Bechalore Program teaching what is known
- A Masters Program teaching how it is known
- A PhD Program trains you to acquire more to be known

Along the lines of wonder what to do when robots do everything for us, I wonder if "Student" should be a job title. I wonder if we should pay people to study and produce academic works or teach vocational skills. First, automation has long promised to make our lives easier but it has, in fact, not done so. It takes people jobs then there are new kinds of jobs made for them. We are as busy as ever. Automation has never been for the benefit of anyone but investors or consumers but not workers. We should change that but it would require changing how our capitalism works. It's absurd to say there is only socialism or capitalism--there are an infinite possible variations of capitalism. I generally argue it should be engineered such as to be incentive driven toward the betterment of society. In other words, doctors get paid for good health outcomes, not the more sick you get (for example).

What if we organized academic and vocational learning around useful information and skill sharing products? These could have real value, more or less. Maybe it's not a lot of money but it's better to be paid than to pay to study. It's better to have students than homeless people... It's good for people to gain knowledge and skills until they are inspired enough to do something meaningful with it.

Suleyman appears to only have fame to base his argument on. I read the article, the cited essay, and searched other information from him but found literally not even an argument for his claim--just the claim.

In other words, this is his personal feeling and it is unfounded in any way being that.

So what makes him credible? I think this breaks any credibility he might have had. A person famed in the field or with a university degree in it certainly should know better than many others. However, it doesn't necessarily mean that they do. At least on this issue, he doesn't know better and is making big public claims without even presenting an argument in support.... much less any evidence.

The claim that people are wasting their time asking this question is damaging. We should ask questions about everything. There is nothing off limits to ask questions about. He can argue that he feels it would be fruitless and it's ok to have an opinion but his influence on others is abused by his claim that they are wasting their time.

However... It is possible that some influences come from other universes. By definition, a universe comprises things that influence each other. However, it is entirely possible that one universe's influence is one-way on another.

Most of my life I believes logic was absolutely fundamental underlying everything in the universe until one day I realized I was definitely wrong.

Godel's Incompeteness theorems show it simply can't be. However, a simple look into the universe manifestly validates that it isn't. What we see in both the very small and the very large are oscillation patterns. Logic, being any system of axioms (rules resulting in categoric answers like True/False, or A/B/C, etc), is only found from relative perspectives. For example, day and night. And, exactly as in the theorems of Incompleteness, it only works from that point of view but does not always work. Moving in the direction of north will eventually take you south. Logic is always relative between the oscillations of the absolute universe.

This is also why Number Theory is broken. The axioms that describe the number system we use for all mathematics are known to be ambiguous.

However, the universe is an interweaving of linear influences. This is not logic but it is consistent and is not a heuristic. It provides a form of reasoning that is not logical but is fundamental in the universe. When these linear relationships come to what logic would call an ambiguity, we see what we now call quantum phenomenon. This is merely the natural continuation of the linear relationships.

I have worked in many organizations over my 30+ year career and one thing I learned is that the modern corporate ecosystem, on average, encourages the incompetent (more or less) to rise in the ranks of management. I know a lot of you have also learned this. The way to succeed is mostly just make sure you can blame others for failures and don't get in trouble. Above all, their like things that save them time. AI looks like it can do that for them.

However, I've already seen in my own work place and the work places of others I talk with situations where developers were fired with AI to replace them. It failed and they then started trying to rehire the lost positions. Sometimes, they really are just looking for reasons to get rid of certain individuals. The executives are those often more interested in firing to save money. In those cases, it's usually more random or whole departments.

This all said, I develop AI tools and refine models all day long. I also use AI to code for me. I do find it useful but it took me a lot of time and work to learn how to use it effectively. It really does require skill and knowing where and how LLM models screw up. For example, don't just tell them what you want have them make it. Give detailed descriptions of the tools, protocols, coding style, etc. Then design the tables/columns, the API calls, etc. Design your software at each layer and have it build each layer and test and debug each layer comprehensively before moving on. Then, in the next layer, tell it not to edit the other layers. Or at least, tell it not to modify the regression tests for the previous layers. It will give up on bugs and try to hide them or belittle their importance, etc. Force it to fix them... keep trying until it gets it.