Comment author: 21 August 2017 09:02:01AM 2 points [-]

keyboard shortcuts to snap windows to any half or third of the screen (or full screen).

In Windows 10 you can,

• Maximize a window using Windows Key + Up Arrow.
• Un-maximize with Win + Down Arrow.
• Minimize window with Win + Down Arrow again.
• Cover left half, with Win + Left Arrow.
• Upper right quarter with Win + Right Arrow, followed by Win + Up Arrow.
• Lower left with Win + Left Arrow, followed by Win + Down Arrow.
• When using left/right split windows, dragging the center resize bar will resize both windows.

Very convenient.

Comment author: 03 September 2017 06:10:03AM *  1 point [-]

You can also move windows between monitors with Win + Shift + Left/Right.

Comment author: 03 February 2017 11:56:42AM *  2 points [-]

This describes the case where there's an establishment and a resistance. What happens when there's two establishments and two resistances, each opposing the other? I think this is the more relevant scenario for your interest.

Comment author: 02 February 2017 06:10:06AM 2 points [-]

I used to come here daily or more, now more like once a week, as the amount of interesting discussion has gradually declined.

Comment author: 27 October 2016 09:21:19PM *  4 points [-]

Any insights about the following calculation?

If 100 km size body will fall on the Sun it would produce the flash 1000 times stronger than the Sun’s luminosity for 1 second, which would result in fires and skin burns for humans on day side of Earth.

The calculation is just calculation of energy of impact, and many “ifs” are not accounted, which could weaken consequences or increase them. Such body could be from the family of Sun grazing comets which originate from Oort cloud. The risk is not widely recognized and it is just my idea.

The basis for this calculation is following: Comets hit the Sun with speed of 600 km/s, and mass of 100 km size body (the comets of this size do exist) is 10e18 kg, so the energy of impact is 3.6x10e29 J, while Sun’s luminosity is 3x10e26 W.

Comment author: 28 October 2016 11:54:20PM *  1 point [-]

Wouldn't most of the energy go into mechanical deformation of the comet and the sun, rather than EM radiation?

Comment author: 01 June 2016 10:30:26AM 0 points [-]

In response to comment by on June 2016 Media Thread
Comment author: 05 June 2016 12:54:06AM *  0 points [-]

I've only played about 12 hours, but the Total War: Warhammer crossover is very enjoyable so far. It's the first Total War game I've played since Medieval 1, but it still feels familiar enough while introducing interesting new elements and atmosphere via the Warhammer fantasy setting. On the downside, some of the UI elements are a bit fiddly or obscure, and there are a lot of features to take in when you're first getting started.

For those unfamiliar:

Warhammer = Pretty standard late-medieval fantasy setting with humans, dwarfs, elves (not in this first release), undead, etc, but with more grimdark/heavy metal, and a touch of steampunk.

Total War = Strategy games where you alternate between building and moving armies around on a turn-based strategic map, and playing real-time tactical battles that are unusually realistic and slow-paced compared to the typical hyperactive RTS.

In response to comment by on June 2016 Media Thread
Comment author: 01 June 2016 05:18:12PM 2 points [-]
• Short Peace (anthology; mostly good, with the fire story notable for its animation, and the final short film an engaging exploration of near-future warfare using networked soldier squads assisted by drones and robotic suits)
• Death Parade (expansion of Death Billiards, as an episodic series; stories remain a bit heavily focused on suicide and murder, but while the dark background story arc ultimately ends in a whimper, the main story arc ends in a very emotionally satisfying way)
In response to comment by on June 2016 Media Thread
Comment author: 05 June 2016 12:50:00AM 0 points [-]

I watched the first episode of this, but found it too torture-porn-y. Is it all like that?

In response to comment by on The AI in Mary's room
Comment author: 29 May 2016 12:50:43PM *  -2 points [-]

The relevance is physicalism.

If physicalism is the claim that everything, has a physical explanation, then the inability to understand what pain is without being in pain is a contradiction to it. I don' think anyone here believes that physicalism is an unmportamt issue.

In response to comment by on The AI in Mary's room
Comment author: 29 May 2016 01:36:54PM 0 points [-]

I'm arguing that there's no contradiction and that this inability is just a limit of humans/organic brains, not a fundamental fact about pain or information.

In response to comment by on The AI in Mary's room
Comment author: 29 May 2016 09:13:17AM *  -1 points [-]

What is a "non physical fact"?

The argument treats physical knowledge as a subset of objective. kowledge. Subjective knowledge, which can only be known on a first person basis, automatically counts as non physical. That's an epistemic definition.

The experience of red seems to be physically encoded in the brain like anything else.

If you have the expected intuition from M's R, that Mary would be able to read cognitive information from brain scans, but not expetuental information. In that send, 'red' is not encoded in the same way as everything else, since it can not be decoded in the same way.

sIt does seem clear that some knowledge exists which can't be transmitted from human to human via means of language, at least not in the same way that 2+2=4 can. However, this is just a limitation of the human design

But noit super human design. The original paper (ave you read it?) avoids the issue of limited communication bandwidth by making Mary a super scientist who can examine brain scans of any level of detail.

Proves anything beyond that

What it proves to you depends on what intuitions you have about it . If you think Mary would know what red looks like while in the room, from reading brain scans, then it s going to prove anything to you.

In response to comment by on The AI in Mary's room
Comment author: 29 May 2016 11:15:02AM *  0 points [-]

A way to rephrase the question is, "is there any sequence of sensory inputs other than the stimulation of red cones by red light that will cause Mary to have comparable memories re: the color red as someone who has had their red cones stimulated at some point". It's possible that the answer is no, which says something interesting about the API of the human machine, but doesn't seem necessarily fundamental to the concept of knowledge.

In response to comment by on The AI in Mary's room
Comment author: 28 May 2016 07:02:46PM 0 points [-]

Consider a situation where Mary is so dexterous that she is able to perform fine-grained brain surgery on herself. In that case, she could look at what an example of a brain that has seen red looks like, and manually copy any relevant differences into her own brain. In that case, while she still never would have actually seen red through her eyes, it seems like she would know what it is like to see red as well as anyone else.

But in order to create a realistic experience she would have to create a false memory of having seen red, which is something that an agent (human or AI) that values epistemic rationality would not want to do.

In response to comment by on The AI in Mary's room
Comment author: 29 May 2016 01:33:55AM 0 points [-]

Since you'd know it was a false memory, it doesn't necessarily seem to be a problem, at least if you really need to know what red is like for some reason.

In response to comment by on The AI in Mary's room
Comment author: 27 May 2016 06:15:16PM 1 point [-]

M's R is about what it says its about, the existence of non physical facts. Finding a loophole where Mary can instantiate the brain state without having the perceptual stimulus doesn't address that...indeed it assumes that an instantiation of the red-seeing is necessary, which is tantamount to conceding that something subectve is going on, which is tantamount to conceding the point.

In response to comment by on The AI in Mary's room
Comment author: 29 May 2016 01:29:27AM *  1 point [-]

non physical facts

What is a "non physical fact"? The experience of red seems to be physically encoded in the brain like anything else. It does seem clear that some knowledge exists which can't be transmitted from human to human via means of language, at least not in the same way that 2+2=4 can. However, this is just a limitation of the human design that doesn't necessarily apply to eg AIs (which depending on design may be able to transmit and integrate snippets of their internal code and data), and I don't think this thought experiment proves anything beyond that.

View more: Next