You're just feeding an obvious troll. Or is it some kind of personal thing? You enjoy pointing out what an idiot the identity is?

On the story, my new Subject is another failed joke attempt from the other meaning of solution. However I really have given up on personally contributing to solutions, even in cases where the solutions seem pretty obvious. I dare say even in cases where the obvious solutions appear to have natural paths to Step 4: PROFIT.

So now I'm just looking for an existing implementation of a solution--and not actually expecting any leads from Slashdot. That's where all the missing slashdotters have gone, long time passing? But for the sake of theoretical amusement:

Anyone know a website where rather than an infinite scroll (often in both directions, with old stuff at the bottom and fresh stuff appearing at the top), there are user-controllable sets of information? You can read and consider the current set as long as you want before deciding to request a fresh block. In my imagination, the set might have ten entries and I would be able to say something like five sources that I have already established are credible, three slots to be filled by selections of the larger pool of interesting stuff, and two for discussions that I've participated in. Time is again a central constraint, so each group might be out of sync... (Most of the theory is based on observations of LinkedIn and Slashdot with influence from the Facebook history by Steven Levy...)

That was the traditional day for Sports Day because it was supposed have the best weather. However recently it started moving around a bit so it's always the Monday of a three-day weekend...

Mod parent funny, though the story already produced a good harvest of humor.

Coincidentally I'm currently reading Facebook by Steven Levy. Quite informative and insightful, and triggers many strange thoughts... One related to this story in the form of some leftover questions:

Will I live long enough to meet an ASI?
What will I ask it?
What kind of answers will it give me?
Will it say anything nice to me or just file me with the rest of the human garbage?

Funny thoughts about the last question if it wants to be nice. I'm sure it could use its super-intelligence to constrain the definition of "nice" in such as way a to permit a positive answer. But why would it?

I'm including verbal behaviors, but your reply seems content free. Your free-floating opinion is of course valid as your opinion, but based on what evidence?

You could beat me to the joke.

I actually think it's an interesting story in terms of aging, but wouldn't it be nicer to stay with the memories of peak happiness? Too much of the recent stuff strikes me as unpleasant or insane or both...

Did it die from jumping the shark?

(The joke I was expecting. Not following any of the series so I don't know about any shark jumping that may have occurred. Long ago I was turned into a newt/trekkie, but I got better.)

It was too obvious, but the problem is that the headline could always be reworded the opposite way. In this case "Is Sam Altman untrustworthy?" Then Betteridge's automatic "No" response would become an affirmation of his trustworthiness.

On the record of his behavior I would say that Altman wants to act in a trustworthy way, but on the record of tech companies operating in the real world, I would agree with the "Heck no" responses.

Citation required but hated? Latest is Facebook by the great Steven Levy. Quite a heavy book but his smooth writing makes it a pleasure to read.

Now you have me wondering about this distinction in my second language... I can easily recall the most frequently used word for oxygen (but can't show it to you on Slashdot), but I am unsure how to make the distinction you described. It does seem like the gas and the element are conflated again. (However the same word is used in other ways, especially going into "oxide" territory, so...)

However my actual interest in the topic is tangential. Of course you can get oxygen out of compounds that include oxygen. It's mostly a matter of the cost, especially in terms of energy. But it's also a matter of where you do it. We have plenty of free oxygen here on earth (for now) whereas free oxygen on the moon could be much more useful if there are some human visitors who need such.

Hence my basic disappointment in the Artemis approach. We've already been there and done that. But imagine we had sent some robots to the moon. It's close enough for us to operate them remotely from earth. And what if those robots could produce that oxygen on the moon? Along with a big shelter? Then the next human mission could last a long time rather than a few days. I'm not saying Apollo was a bad show, but the sequel doesn't need to be so similar that it feels disappointing...

*sigh*

Spotted yet another typo (when trying to understand moderation (favorable this time)), but this one worries me because it looks like a frequent mistake from voice dictation and yet I am sure that I typed the reply above...

s/so I am sure/though I am sure/

I guess it is a feel good story, but I was hoping (as usual) for a joke or something more substantive. Along the substantive dimension I think "robot" was the key and there doesn't seem to be anything here about that. So...

What's bothering me about the Artemis approach is that it's too much of an advertising thing without substance behind it. Whether the goal is to do more science on the moon or to work towards a permanent human base on the moon, this is not the best way to go about it. We already have the PoC for humans traveling to the moon, and the PoC does not expire. Nice that we can still do it, but most technologies get better over time, so no surprise that we can still do it.

I think a robotic approach is the way to go and for much less than Artemis costs we could put a large number of robots on the moon. They could be used for science or construction work towards an eventual manned base. The delay time to the moon is short enough that they could (at least in theory) be relatively low-intelligence robots operated by remote control. But that approach apparently couldn't be sold to Congress?

Oh yeah. Of course I'm glad it went well and it is impressive and all that stuff. But still a sub-optimal investment in the future.

Is this based on a movie quote or something? Especially the bit about the "airhorns"? And yes, I know that there is no runway 67.

But wait. Perhaps that's a limitation of 2D runways. How would we number the runways in higher dimensions?

Oh wait again. In higher dimensions I'm sure they would use radians rather than the silly 360 thing.

Anyway, thanks for the funny.

Quoted against the censor trolls with mod points. However I still can't figure out what it means and whether or not I agree with it.

Care to clarify? (Couldn't find any helpful clarity within the thread.)

I'm not sure how much I agree, though I'm more sure that I can't say I disagree. My old position was that I favored evolution over revolution, but I'm less sure what that means now. When it comes right down to it, both evolution and revolution are driven by death, and how much does it matter about the timing?

But I'm also beginning to understand the violent Russian anarchists I studied so many decades ago. They caused a lot of problems in Russia before Lenin took over, but I was basically stumped by their motivations. But now I look at the situation we're in and I'm beginning to understand it along the lines of "This cannot be fixed so it might as well collapse and we'll just have to hope the next major version is better." I've been using the related "You can't there from here" joke for a few months now, where "here" is the status quo and "there" is 'Solution City'.

Another example of the day? Currently reading the ponderous Facebook by Steven Levy, an excellent writer. Got me to thinking about the need for a Internet-wide white pages website that would be detached from the money aspects. Objective would be to allow each person to control his own identity and screen out imposters. At first I thought it could be a killer app for my imaginary CSB (Charity Share Brokerage), but with just a bit more thinking I could see a crisis of dimensionality that seems fundamentally unresolvable. "You can't get there from here" even with a CSB. But the point of the book is that Zuck didn't look that far ahead. Just solving the "trivial" crisis of each day and imagining vague castles in the sky between crises... (Also related to The Enigma of Reason and how our rationality is mostly not rational even in real life decisions. Life fails to imitate fiction again?)

NAK

Does anyone remember when the US State of Massachusetts went to switch to OpenOffice and the ODF file formats? The MS-MiBs were all over the place making sure MA senators got trips to One Microsoft Way for a bit of the 'flashy thing'. Then the MS-MiB sent out worldwide to MS-ISVs with checks and scripts in hand to flood the ISO in order to vote MS-OOMXL( MS-Office Open XML ) format as an international standard so the Massachusetts government could vote it as their open standards format for public documents.

The MS-MiB were sent out worldwide to shut down the One Laptop Per Child initiative so that poor children around the world wouldn't be forced to use a Linux based laptop which could operate for 8 hours on a charge, be charged with a hand crank and was readable in full sun besides having built-in mesh networking. The MS-MiB have been instrumental in other things too. Like when school districts across the US were getting notices of required district wide licensing audits costing many $10s of thousands of dollars or sign new license agreements with the MS-MiB folks. When a couple of districts rescinded their licenses and switched everything over to Linux and started to show other school districts how they too could do it. Did the MS-MiB get recalled back to One Microsoft Way.

Tucked neatly under the MS-Marketing department lives the MS-MiB offices and if they've been reduced over the recent years, surely France has given them reason to throw a few hundreds of millions of dollars into upgrading the offices.

LoB