= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I'm just going to say I particularly liked the idea of the house cable transport system.
In response to
My April Fools' Day Confession
But, and this I have not yet heard suggested here, you could solve that problem by having tunnels underground, instead of streets above, and all the cars auto-piloted. Then the AI problem would become vastly easier and could have been solved in the early 2000s of this Earth.
Current cars do not already travel through underground tunnels.
The biggest obstacle here is that underground construction is orders of magnitude more expensive than above-ground construction.
Yeah, that was my very first thought re the tunnels. Excavation is expensive. (and maintenance costs would be rather higher as well.)
OTOH, we don't even need full solution (including legal solution) to self driving cars to improve stuff. The obvious solution to the "but I might need to go on a 200 mile trip" is "rent a long distance car as needed, and otherwise own a commuter car."
That needs far less of coordination problems, because that's something that one can pretty much do right now. Next time one goes to purchase/lease/whatever a vehicle, get one appropriate/efficient/etc for short distances, and just rent a long haul vehicle as needed.
(Or, if living in place with decent public transport, potentially no need to own a vehicle at all, of course.)
We're still on for whoever can make it. I was out driving today and roads seemed a little better.
Running a bit late, but still coming, just about to head out.
We're still on for whoever can make it. I was out driving today and roads seemed a little better.
Cool! In that case, as of now at least, I'm still planning on showing up.
I think we're good, as long as some people don't mind sitting on the floor.
Well, I could bring a few extra chairs if wanted. (Although are we even still on for tomorrow given how the roads are? (Admittedly, sunday will probably be worse...))
Like last time, I'll bring around six chairs & stools and some "my name is" stickers.
Well, as I said, anything else needed? (more chairs? other stuff?)
In response to
Meetup : Southeast Michigan
As of now, I'm planning on coming.
Anything I should be bringing? (ie, extra chairs, whatever?)
Why not go a step further and say that 1 copy is the same as 0, if you think there's a non-moral fact of the matter? The abstract computation doesn't notice whether it's instantiated or not. (I'm not saying this isn't itself really confused - it seems like it worsens and doesn't dissolve the question of why I observe an orderly universe - but it does seem to be where the GAZP points.)
Hrm... The whole exist vs non exist thing is odd and confusing in and of itself. But so far it seems to me that an algorithm can meaningfully note "there exists an algorithm doing/perceiving X", where X represents whatever it itself is doing/perceiving/thinking/etc. But there doesn't seem there'd be any difference between 1 and N of them as far as that.
There's no brief answer. I've been slowly gravitating towards, but am not yet convinced, by the suspicion that making a computer out of twice as much material causes there to be twice as much person inside. Reason: No exact point where splitting a flat computer in half becomes a separate causal process, similarity to behavior of Born probabilities. But that's not an update to the anthropic trilemma per se.
That seems to be seriously GAZP violating. Trying to figure out how to put my thoughts on this into words but... There doesn't seem to be anywhere that the data is stored that could "notice" the difference. The actual program that is being the person doesn't contain a "realness counter". There's nowhere in the data that could "notice" the fact that there's, well, more of the person. (Whatever it even means for there to be "more of a person")
Personally, I'm inclined in the opposite direction, that even N separate copies of the same person is the same as 1 copy of the same person until they diverge, and how much difference between is, well, how separate they are.
(Though, of course, those funky Born stats confuse me even further. But I'm fairly inclined toward the "extra copies of the exact same mind don't add more person-ness. But as they diverge from each other, there may be more person-ness. (Though perhaps it may be meaningful to talk about additional fractions of personness rather than just one then suddenly two hole persons. I'm less sure on that.)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
This I realized as a 15 year old. I balanced the costs of a drivers license (time and cost), total cost of car(s) and the time spent driving against the costs of public transportation (including occassional larger transports) and freedom of mobility. Note that public transportations saves lot of time and time was important to me. So I decided against a car. And I have not regretted it. Since I'm free-lancing I'm using cabs more often. But driving a car myself? What a horrible waste of precious time. Disclaimer: Public transportation is quite good where I live and allows to work on a laptop during commute.
From my point of view in an ideal system significant commute and relocation shouldn't be neccessary at all. Besides leaving a place often means leaving a social environment which has to be balanced - except you see independent singles as more highly motivated or that virtual relationships are sufficient.
Cool! (Though does seem that a license would be useful for longer trips, so you'd at least have the option of renting a vehicle if needed.)
And interesting point re social environment.