bss03

I think there's a lower limit of complexity for sentience, based on memory-persistence, self-firing, and self-recognition. I think there's no need for moral concern for non-sentient things. (But, that's just my ethical framework and philosophical worldview; the only "evidence" I'm at all aware of is thin and vague.)

But, as far as having a subjective experience, I think that might go quite small and alien including fungi and plant or even certain sub-cellular structures. Probably anything that maintains a border and internal homeostasis including parts of the bodies of larger experiencers could be having an internal perspective -- and any human words applied so those experiences would tell you more about human bias than the experience.

Shadowrun used the term "bioware" instead, do you like that better?

Your feelings are valid. The "rise" of "AI" has been a net negative for my subjective experience, too.

On my good days, I still enjoy programming, but I just ignore AI, and if it is too forcefully suggested, I just blacklist the purveyor.

On my bad days, I don't have enthusiasm for anything, but I still program because this project isn't going to get done any other way. I've tried throwing AI at other things, and it screws things up so badly it takes me more time to fix it. And, sometimes it "lies" and I don't catch it immediately.

I have a good selection of subscriptions on YT (and Nebula), communities on Lemmy, and Follows on Mastodon, and I start there when I just want to enjoy the web. I intentionally avoid following algorithmic suggestions of unknown quality (and defintiely turn off any sort of auto-play); I find I will spend time on that stuff nearly without bound, but it's less enjoyable than what I (or other humans) have curated.

I started programming in '85 as a child. I used to be a professional Haskell programmer. I'm open for work. (All I need is vim and some API docs and I can write anything from C to JavaScript to Lean.)

Fidelity, Banks, Coinbase (before I got out of cryptocurrency entirely).

But, basically, only when government regulation does (or SHOULD) impose KYC requirements.

Age and ID verification might be good in a very few cases, but it should definitely be a deviation from the norm.

I’m confused, why would “Accurate Noon” be important?

Why is any particular time important? It serves me to be able to tell time without a clock and synchronize my internal clock with solar activity.

And for countries that sit far enough from the equator, wouldn’t it be inaccurate regardless?

No. Distance from the equator doesn't significantly affect when the sun it at it's peak. It does affect how high in the sky the peak is.

Time adjustments (like "daylight saving") drags the Sun E/W (which is why we "need" timezones). Increasing latitude dags the Sun N/S.

I'd rather have accurate noon / celestial time for the few months it is still allowed and still have to switch twice a year than let the government make wrong-noon ("daylight saving") time permanent. So, many of the "end time switching" movements I actively resist rather than support.

I imagine things like this aren't "done and over" because there is no majority opinion.

RCV / a Condorcet Method might help.

~~:.|:;~~

Found on: https://shop.revolvermag.com/products/funko-pop-rocks-lemmy-kilmister-gold-rainbow-bar-grill-statue

I wish I learned the lessons from that language 12 years earlier than I did. I still prefer to write personal code in that family of languages, and it made me a better coder even in Java, JavaScript, Python, even C.

Also, that year is actually the first year it was available and my first year in college; it might have focused me enough to actually go to grad school and start a PL research career. I don't know if that would be better, but it would be different.

The people calling out BTC is also a pretty good idea, but I made a little money on BTC, and I'm not sure too much more money would be a positive change in my life. It could be, but I think it might have made me more covetous and more isolated.

But, I often choose to program instead of playing video games these days, so it's clearly something I enjoy, even if I don't currently monetize it.

Thanks for asking.

I can't figure out how to prevent 9/11 in 3 words. So, I'll just say "Programming Language: Haskell".

Investment as a form of collaboration and results distribution is probably fine. Tho, I would not be opposed to limits on size/scale for companies, individual wealth, pay ratios, etc.

Shorts, options, and other "exotic financial instruments" are worse than gambling because they compel corrupting (withering) behavior.

I think an active, forceful SEC based by a similarly aggressive DOJ, both focused on benefit-to-working-class primarily and market-health (e.g. lack of rent seeking, monopolistic, or monosoponistic behavior) secondarily, would lead toward a better (for global society) market. I think that could be true even if we continued to allow fairly arbitrary contracts that are those "exotic financial instruments", options, and shorts.

I agree that gene editing to reduce suffering is good. I'm not sure "designer babies" is a label that includes those gene edits. Or, if it does, it groups the with too many other gene edits so the good ones are no longer exemplary of the label.