Federal officials stage a major law enforcement operation in a city with zero coordination with the mayor of that city, who instead learns about it from twitter.
A top U.S. Homeland Security official on Monday defended the federal crackdown on protests in Portland, including the use of unmarked cars and unidentified officers in camouflage gear and said the practice will spread to other cities as needed.
Restraining order issued against attacking journalists:
U.S. District Judge Michael Simon today blocked federal agents in Portland from dispersing, arresting, threatening to arrest, or targeting force against journalists or legal observers at protests. The court’s order, which comes in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, adds the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Marshals Service to an existing injunction barring Portland police from arresting or attacking journalists and legal observers at Portland protests.
Oregon just had their attempt to remove federal police thrown out.[1]
In a 14-page order, U.S. District Judge Michael W. Mosman ruled that the state lacked legal standing to bring the suit and had “presented no evidence that these allegedly illegal seizures are a widespread practice.”
Did you mean to reply https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23221433? I don't see how QEE is incompatible with the notion that measuring something necessitates interacting with it. Photons are usually measured by absorbing them and turning into electricity.
“By Feb. 25, Dr. Chu and her colleagues could not bear to wait any longer. They began performing coronavirus tests, without government approval.
What came back confirmed their worst fear. They quickly had a positive test from a local teenager with no recent travel history. The coronavirus had already established itself on American soil without anybody realizing it.”
This story strikes me as off. It runs counter to every other aspect of the virus we focus on. Specifically, if it was already spreading in schools, then why don't we see scores of critical kids and parents? With how contagious this is, I find it fairly unconvincing that it was just that student.
Combined with symptoms taking about a week to present, this was in community spread for a while. Yet, here in WA, the deaths figure is still 92% over sixty years old. I don't know the percent from long term care facilities. (I would love that stat.)
Then the question is at what point did it break into long term care facilities? And could we have done something to strengthen their protection?
With a further question of what, exactly, causes it to go severe.
Not so much in avoiding the halting problem while allowing complexity, but instead using it and actual runnable Turing machines to create ridiculously cool cases of unprovable truths.
For example a running Turing machine that only halts if it contradicts set theory.
My understanding is, unlike any other government agency or business, the USPS is required by law to fully fund 50 years of pensions.
If that requirement were removed, it would be fine.
This is an anecdote not data, but I've heard several USPS delivery folks mention that a lot of long-tenured drivers decided to take vacation and sick time when the lockdown started ramping up. This has caused other drivers to pick up the slack so there may be a lot of overtime getting paid out.
I can't get the numbers to add up here. Even with letters down, advertising down then their revenue should either be flat or have a slight increase based on my guesstimate for their increase in parcel business.
Spelling and grammar errors take something like 60 seconds to fix in any reasonable editor that has suggested spelling fixes.
The goal is to focus on the idea and dispense with what should be automated. This is for exploring ideas not refining wording.
For a novel, the choice to edit as you go is orthogonal to avoiding editing during a word sprint. The real issue is during revision you’ll find you corrected a bunch of stuff you are cutting. If that editing was cheap who cares? If you sweated over a sentence for 15 minutes you might do the wrong thing and not cut it even though that is better for the story.
68% of ‘independent investors’. Would the vote have been less than 50% under an ordinary structure as well? I can’t tell if Zuckerburg would still have been fine under ‘normal’ circumstances.
Visidata seems like an example of the kind of UI this author thinks would be better. http://visidata.org/
A former coworker used this as his project while on sabbatical at the recurse center.
It is mostly GPL v3, except for MIT license on the core UI.
From the Visidata GitHub page:
The innermost core file, vdtui.py, is a single-file stand-alone library that provides a solid framework for building text user interface apps. It is distributed under the MIT free software license, and freely available for inclusion in other projects.
I found Metzinger’s ‘The ego tunnel’ immensely helpful in identifying the constituent parts that we mean by consciousness. Everything the physicist Sean Carroll says about consciousness rings true to me. It is only an illusion in the same way the 2nd law of thermodynamics is an illusion built from particle interaction and statistics.
That is an excellent analogy. Perhaps "emergent property" would be a better term for both, but even that phrase doesn't quite capture the true spirit of Dennett's argument. It's not just the consciousness is emergent, it's that its true nature is actually very different from what we think it is.
And yet, given some time interval, all threads do make progress within that interval (assuming its not too small of course). So if by multitasking we mean that execution of multiple threads progresses over time, then multitasking on a single CPU is real. The point is that one's perspective is relevant to what's correctly taken as real.
But what is the perspective of neural circuitry's acquaintance with neural circuitry? I don't know, but I know its not like our third person acquaintance with neural circuitry. And so saying phenomenal experience is an illusion of neural circuitry (and thus not real) is a mistake. It's like saying heat isn't real, only energetic particles are real, despite the fact that I just got burned by my hot pan.
You're correct, it's more correct to say it's an illusion of parallelism. On human timescales the parallelism appears real but it's really not.
> It's like saying heat isn't real, only energetic particles are real, despite the fact that I just got burned by my hot pan
Which is true, heat isn't real, just like my car isn't real. These are labels we apply to loose macroscopic phenomena. And so it is with consciousness.
At some level of abstraction, we can certainly talk about consciousness as something real since it's clearly a phenomenon requiring explication, but the "real" we're talking about in this sort of debate is some irreducible metaphysical existence, such as that posited by dualism.
>but the "real" we're talking about in this sort of debate is some irreducible metaphysical existence, such as that posited by dualism.
But this seems like a mistake. When someone like Dennett says that phenomenal consciousness doesn't exist, it seems like he's denying the reality of the appearances of phenomenal experience. That is, we say that phenomenal experience seems a certain way to us, but Dennett counters that this appearance is false. Denying the reality of the appearances of phenomenal experience is denying the existence of what most people take as the explanandum in this debate.
But there's a difference between denying a theory of the nature of a phenomena and denying the phenomena. We can say that phenomenal experience aren't irreducibly fundamental and not deny the existence of phenomenal experience. But illusion talk denies the phenomena, it's not merely saying it doesn't have a fundamental existence.
> But illusion talk denies the phenomena, it's not merely saying it doesn't have a fundamental existence.
I don't see how. An illusion is a perception entailing a false conclusion when taken at face value. The perception clearly exists, but what it entails is the illusion.
Qualia would then fall under the same category as other perceptive illusions, like optical illusions:
Just so we're clear, when you say "appearance of phenomenal experience", I read, "the entailment of a perception". And it seems perfectly sensible to say that the entailments of perceptions can and often are false.
"Entailments of perception" is too broad and so doesn't pick out the right target here. My immediate perception entails that there is a red cup a short distance in front of me. Entailments about the outside world can certainly be false (e.g. that red is a property of the cup that lives in the outside world).
But what does the perception of a red cup entail about my inner state? Nothing that I can tell, except that I am having a perception of a specific kind. What does it mean to say that my perception of a specific kind is an illusion? It's hard to say. The perception gives me certain powers of discrimination that entail the necessary veracity of those aspects of the perception (i.e. I can tell red from blue, red from pain, red from pitch, etc). Are there aspects of perception that don't play a role in any kind of discrimination? Not that I can tell. And so perceptions themselves just don't seem like the kinds of things that can be properly called illusions.
