David R. MacIver
@drmaciver.bsky.social
Yeah! I think I pass the tests with toilets (at least UK ones. I know that US ones do different things with water that I'm not totally clear on the details of, and there's a whole separate category of mains pressure toilets that work differently again) but lots of things I don't.
October 16, 2025 at 8:03 PM
Yeah! I think I pass the tests with toilets (at least UK ones. I know that US ones do different things with water that I'm not totally clear on the details of, and there's a whole separate category of mains pressure toilets that work differently again) but lots of things I don't.
I do not feel more zen now Dave.
March 10, 2025 at 12:08 PM
I do not feel more zen now Dave.
(I don't think godlike intelligence is literally impossible, but I do think my probability that we ever get there is significantly under 50%)
March 7, 2025 at 11:47 PM
(I don't think godlike intelligence is literally impossible, but I do think my probability that we ever get there is significantly under 50%)
But if "superintelligence" means something closer to godlike intelligence, I might be at never. I guess my working definition is "clearly superhuman on some axis, or peak human on multiple axes you'd not normally find together, and not clearly subhuman in easy to notice ways"
March 7, 2025 at 11:46 PM
But if "superintelligence" means something closer to godlike intelligence, I might be at never. I guess my working definition is "clearly superhuman on some axis, or peak human on multiple axes you'd not normally find together, and not clearly subhuman in easy to notice ways"
I'm honestly not sure how to answer this, and I think a lot of that is weighted on my uncertainty on what "unambiguous superintelligence" means. Erring on the side of stricter criteria I think 2050ish is probably the closest I'd confidently put at >= 50% probability.
March 7, 2025 at 11:46 PM
I'm honestly not sure how to answer this, and I think a lot of that is weighted on my uncertainty on what "unambiguous superintelligence" means. Erring on the side of stricter criteria I think 2050ish is probably the closest I'd confidently put at >= 50% probability.
Reposted by David R. MacIver
Shrinkray has very sensible rules that apply well to languages it has no specific knowledge of -- we make a *lot* of use of this and it's brilliant! -- and it scales near-linearly to the number of cores. If you need a reducer, I highly recommend it! Thanks @drmaciver.bsky.social!
March 6, 2025 at 2:24 PM
Shrinkray has very sensible rules that apply well to languages it has no specific knowledge of -- we make a *lot* of use of this and it's brilliant! -- and it scales near-linearly to the number of cores. If you need a reducer, I highly recommend it! Thanks @drmaciver.bsky.social!
Started reading this yesterday. It's very good so far, thanks!
February 1, 2025 at 11:08 AM
Started reading this yesterday. It's very good so far, thanks!
Reminded how my first ever conference talk was a lightning talk about how microservices were bullshit. IIRC you were involved in pushing me into doing it, but I may be conflating events.
January 22, 2025 at 6:00 PM
Reminded how my first ever conference talk was a lightning talk about how microservices were bullshit. IIRC you were involved in pushing me into doing it, but I may be conflating events.
Mostly that bluesky is in the odd position of being both decentralised identity and also having a canonical identity that most people will use. ciphergoth.bsky.social is much more plausibly legitimate than ciphergoth.someother.domain
December 30, 2024 at 1:12 PM
Mostly that bluesky is in the odd position of being both decentralised identity and also having a canonical identity that most people will use. ciphergoth.bsky.social is much more plausibly legitimate than ciphergoth.someother.domain
That's good, although it sortof feels like this is a nontrivial threat model for scams even without renaming. e.g. this wouldn't have been much better if @ciphergoth.org had always been at the .org rather than previously having the .bsky.social address.
December 30, 2024 at 11:57 AM
That's good, although it sortof feels like this is a nontrivial threat model for scams even without renaming. e.g. this wouldn't have been much better if @ciphergoth.org had always been at the .org rather than previously having the .bsky.social address.
Looks like the account has been suspended at least, but yikes.
December 30, 2024 at 11:07 AM
Looks like the account has been suspended at least, but yikes.
Possibly part of the difference is that my balance just isn't very good, so I end up relying a lot more on visual cues to keep me upright, and if I were better at balance I wouldn't need that compensatory strategy.
December 28, 2024 at 8:21 PM
Possibly part of the difference is that my balance just isn't very good, so I end up relying a lot more on visual cues to keep me upright, and if I were better at balance I wouldn't need that compensatory strategy.
I genuinely liked the righteous mind and still find bits of it useful. I also straightforwardly disbelieve most of its empirical claims.
December 18, 2024 at 11:05 AM
I genuinely liked the righteous mind and still find bits of it useful. I also straightforwardly disbelieve most of its empirical claims.
My mental categorisation of Haidt is "often interesting, rarely correct"
December 18, 2024 at 11:05 AM
My mental categorisation of Haidt is "often interesting, rarely correct"
Right, it's not that replies are excluded, it's that whether or not it's a reply is irrelevant, it's only explicit mentions that count.
December 17, 2024 at 7:15 PM
Right, it's not that replies are excluded, it's that whether or not it's a reply is irrelevant, it's only explicit mentions that count.
Yeah, it's that.
December 17, 2024 at 4:12 PM
Yeah, it's that.
Actually I have a theory. It's a slightly ridiculous one but I think it's possibly right.
I think replies don't count. I think only explicit mentions do. I'm going to test this shortly one second.
I think replies don't count. I think only explicit mentions do. I'm going to test this shortly one second.
December 17, 2024 at 4:12 PM
Actually I have a theory. It's a slightly ridiculous one but I think it's possibly right.
I think replies don't count. I think only explicit mentions do. I'm going to test this shortly one second.
I think replies don't count. I think only explicit mentions do. I'm going to test this shortly one second.
Yeah on closer inspection, you're right, sorry. It's missing a lot of posts.
December 17, 2024 at 3:32 PM
Yeah on closer inspection, you're right, sorry. It's missing a lot of posts.
Although entertainingly the link *doesn't* because it strips the query parameters. Sigh.
December 17, 2024 at 2:46 PM
Although entertainingly the link *doesn't* because it strips the query parameters. Sigh.