I would legitimately be worried if they were doctors, but they're philosophers (in medical ethics). Their job is to come up with insane moral edge cases and then try to follow them to their logical conclusion - the siller and more unhinged the better. This is absolutely expected of them.
Many of their other papers have a similar flavour:
- How do we justify research into enhanced warfighters?
- Compulsory moral bioenhancement should be covert
- Abolishing morality in biomedical ethics
mathacademy.com is pretty awesome IMO. one hint: don't take notes/allow yourself to refer to notes during quizzes and reviews, the point is to be able to recall using just your brain, even if your progress is much slower that way, you'll learn a lot better.
Many studies concur that the act of taking notes dramatically improves your ability to remember what you wrote, even if you never look at the notes again. You generally don't have time to transcribe a lecture like a stenographer would, so note taking requires you to understand the material enough to summarize it and describe it in your own words.
Don't rely on your notes come quiz time, if you can get away with it, but by all means do take them during the learning process. And in the real world, you're allowed to refer back to your notes as often as you want to.
seconded, Scratch is a wonderful learning environment. I would pair it with ChatGPT and supervision, LLMs will really help flesh out ideas and figure out how to implement them for kids who won't know how to start, and since you can't just copy-paste into Scratch, the kid will have to actually do the work of dragging the blocks around. We did some amazing stuff with Scratch - visualizing algebra and trig functions by drawing them as a graphing calculator would, we even made a binary tree based morse code decoder, a rocket simulator (using real-ish rocket equation physics, air resistance, etc). Now we have mostly moved onto Desmos (graphing calculator) and Python.
I don't want to police someone else's parenting, but even with supervision I would be deeply cautious against exposing kids to LLMs from a developmental standpoint. Even adults have a hard time not anthropomorphizing LLMs, a kid under a certain again would essentially be unable to not view an LLM as a person, which could have some SERIOUS ramifications down the line.
A key result here is the first demonstration of quantum supremacy; from TFA
> This is the first time in history that any quantum computer has successfully run a verifiable algorithm that surpasses the ability of supercomputers.
"(1) The observable can be experimentally measured with the proper accuracy, in our case with an SNR above unity. More formally, the observable is in the bounded-error quantum polynomial-time (BQP) class.
(2) The observable lies beyond the reach of both exact classical simulation and heuristic methods that trade accuracy for efficiency.
[...]
(3) The observable should yield practically relevant information about the quantum system.
[...] we have made progress towards (1) and (2). Moreover, a proof-of-principle for (3) is demonstrated with a dynamic learning problem."
So none of the criteria they define for "practical quantum advantage" are fully met as far as I understand it.
The key word is "practical" - you can get quantum advantage from precisely probing a quantum system with enough coherent qubits that it would be intractable on a classical computer. But that's exactly because a quantum computer is a quantum system; and because of superposition and entanglement, a linear increase in the number of qubits means an exponential increase in computational complexity for a classical simulation. So if you're able to implement and probe a quantum system of sufficient complexity (in this case ~40 qubits rather than the thousands it would take for Shor's algorithm), that is ipso facto "quantum advantage".
It's still an impressive engineering feat because of the difficulty in maintaining coherence in the qubits with a precisely programmable gate structure that operates on them, but as far as I can see (and I've just scanned the paper and had a couple of drinks this evening) what it really means is that they've found a way to reliably implement in hardware a quantum system that they can accurately extract information from in a way that would be intractable to simulate on classical machines.
I might well be missing some subtleties because of aforementioned reasons and I'm no expert, but it seems like the press release is unsurprisingly in the grayzone between corporate hype and outright deceit (which as we know is a large and constantly expanding multi-dimensional grayzone of heretofore unimagined fractal shades of gray)
mDNS works well for names on your local network, you can integrate it with your dhcp server, works on hosts and phones. I don't have a good answer for ports.
mDNS is like the LLM of DNS: sometimes, for some audiences, it works well, but when it doesn't work you're SoL trying to fix it other than "have you tried $(sudo killall -INT mDNSResponderHelper)?"
I'm not aware of any DHCP change needed for that, since to the very best of my knowledge mDNS is a broadcast protocol. Involving DHCP would be pointing it at the copy of dnsmasq running on your router, such that the hostname that the devices present to DHCP are then resolved by dnsmasq, no mDNS required
No, it's a classification of information. And you're deflecting away from the fact that no one can agree on basic definitions of terminology and everyone is just talking past each other.
That's the tolerance paradox. Things can be disinformation without playing games with equivocation.
If Phillip morris is running a bot farm or paying people to tell others that smoking is healthy and doesn't cause cancer, then we have a duty to call that disinformation and strive to correct it. And I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell me about the growing lung cancer rates in nonsmokers or that lung cancer is more deadly in nonsmokers.
That's completely irrelevant to the original poster's point. The "Disinformation Governance Board" as referenced in the original post was not sponsored by phillip morris, and did not claim that smoking was healthy. Instead, it was sponsored by taxpayers, and was run by people with clear political goals for the suppression of what they considered "disinformation" "misinformation" and "malinformation"
Instead, it was sponsored by taxpayers, and was run by people with clear political goals for the suppression of what they considered "disinformation" "misinformation" and "malinformation"
Not a word of that is accurate.
1. The US government has never had the authority to remove content. They merely flag what they find of foreign and malign origin for platforms, which then take the decisions themselves.
2. The U.S. government worked to uncover foreign influence operations. If those influence operations, aside from promoting chaos, supported one candidate over another, that's not a get-out-of-jail-free card to ignore them.
What it should be is a moment of introspection for conservatives as to why unambiguous enemies of America want the candidate that you want to run the country.
But that introspection has not and probably will never come.
> The US government has never had the authority to remove content.
this is technically true, but false in practice.
> The U.S. government worked to uncover foreign influence operations. If those influence operations, aside from promoting chaos, supported one candidate over another, that's not a get-out-of-jail-free card to ignore them.
they worked to uncover some foreign influence operations (and broadly propagandized the connection to the political campaign); other foreign influence operations (such as a certain dossier compiled by a foreign intelligence agent, colluding with one of the political parties, and using many foreign intelligence sources), they used as the basis for propaganda in mainstream media, which was laundered back into "evidence" for an intelligence operation against a political candidate. Classic disinformation technique. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNcEVYq2qUg
Do you see what I mean when I say "disinformation is a frame" ?
Check it for what? I can't know what narrative you have in your head which you are trying and failing to communicate to me.
> this is technically true, but false in practice.
lol "I'm wrong but if you think of it a different way, my way, then I'm right."
> such as a certain dossier compiled by a foreign intelligence agent, colluding with one of the political parties
The Steele dossier, which you're referring to, started off as opposition research funded by Republicans. I don't have the time nor the desire to debunk everything else you said point by point.
You see the world the way you want to, and you are shaping reality based on what you want to believe.
See what? A cringe TikTok video? What is this supposedly proof of? I know all these conspiracies make sense in your head, but I literally have no idea what you're trying to say.
I'm absolutely sure I'm wasting my time, but I'm having a lazy Sunday so I'll do it anyways.
I wrote:
> Instead, it was sponsored by taxpayers, and was run by people with clear political goals for the suppression of what they considered "disinformation" "misinformation" and "malinformation"
You wrote:
> Not a word of that is accurate.
Let's break it down.
sponsored by taxpayers: true (funded by DHS)
clear political goals: my opinion, debatable, but I think supported by the facts
suppression of disinformation, misinformation, malinformation: also true
> The Steele dossier, which you're referring to, started off as opposition research funded by Republicans. I don't have the time nor the desire to debunk everything else you said point by point.
The Washington Free Beacon did engage Fusion GPS to perform research based on public information of several Republican candidates, including Trump, but at this phase, Fusion GPS had not yet engaged Steele (a former British MI6 agent) for the project. It was only after Perkins Coie began funding the investigation on behalf of their clients, the Clinton campaign and DNC, that Steele was involved. So it is not correct to claim that the "Steele Dossier" was funded as Republican opposition research, because Steele was not involved, and no foreign intelligence sources were used, until the DNC/Clinton campaign were the paying clients. The FEC found that the DNC/Clinton campaign misrepresented their payments for this opposition research and fined them in 2019.
However, the funding is not the point. The point is what the FBI did with it afterwards. Steele shared the dossier with journalist Michael Isikoff, who wrote an article for Yahoo News in September 2016 titled “U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin.” The FBI used both the Steele dossier and this article as evidence for the FISA warrant for surveilling Trump campaign employee Carter Page, without disclosing that the source for this article was the same unverified Steele dossier. This is what I meant when I said that the Steele dossier was washed through the media and then used by the FBI to corroborate the same, even though it added no new information. This was exposed in the 2019 IG report by Michael Horowitz.
The specific allegations against Carter Page, that he had met with some Kremlin officials, and that he had been offered or had been brokering a bribe in the form of shares of the Russian energy company Rosneft, were investigated and never substantiated.
Every word of this is the objective truth, and calling me a liar or an idiot won't help your case.
> See what? A cringe TikTok video? What is this supposedly proof of? I know all these conspiracies make sense in your head, but I literally have no idea what you're trying to say.
The person in this cringe video is none other than Nina Jankowicz, the head of the Disinformation Governance Board, describing the exact disinformation campaign enacted above. You would know this if you had read the wikipedia page.
Please note that I haven't claimed that Republicans don't engage in similar dirty tricks. I am just saying "disinformation is a frame"
Everything in the government is "sponsored by taxpayers". That's how it works.
> clear political goals: my opinion, debatable
Yes as I said, false. Believing it true doesn't make it true.
> The Washington Free Beacon did engage...
Yes as I said it started out as Republican opposition research. You aren't refuting anything I said. You are deflecting and confusing matters, on purpose, so as not to appear wrong in public.
And it's not working.
> The point is what the FBI did with it afterwards
You are right, but not in the way you think. The FBI sat on a credible document from a trusted source regarding high level foreign compromise of a US Presidential candidate as to "not interfere with presidential elections".
This is the same FBI that launched a public investigation into Hillary Clinton's email server (which of course ended with no charges) 11 days before the election.
You are right about FBI interference, just not in the way you think.
I could keep going but this appears to be your red herring to get away from your claim.
> The person in this cringe video is none other than Nina Jankowicz, the head of the Disinformation Governance Board,
She didn't work for DHS when she made that video, and she never actually ran anything because in response to criticism, she was removed and the office was dissolved.
And if you are claiming it is improper to hire partisans to staff critical government functions i'd like to introduce you to the Trump administration, who would never show any level of shame or accountability in response to an awful hire that fucked up and committed crimes, not just made a silly video.
Refusal to engage with information I’ve provided and putting straw man words in my mouth doesn’t make you a serious person. Disinformation is a frame. The fact that some people consider it to be an objective category of information is dangerous.
I directly engaged and refuted everything you said. You can keep repeating what you want to be true over and over, it won't make it so.
That's the point. You cannot will reality to fit your worldview.
It doesn't work that way.
> Disinformation is a frame. The fact that some people consider it to be an objective category of information is dangerous.
Yes, information cannot be verified as true or false. No one can know anything for sure, because then your feelings and opinions can become facts without having pesky things like evidence or proof.
Why let a small thing like the truth get in the way of a good story? Especially one you've invested so much time into, maybe even a good chunk of your identity as well.
Given all that, I might as well be talking to a wall.
