Wait this doesn’t make sense. They own the code I wrote for them. The ‘subscription’ is for future updates of that code. They can keep the version and never update. If I quit they still have what I wrote.
And they pay you 10,000X the cost of $3/month for the ability to own that code.
But it seems you still aren’t following the hypocrisy inherent here.
If this one time payment + ownership model is so great for everyone as you say, why aren’t you working exclusively as a project-based freelancer? Why hasn’t your employer fired you the minute you finish every project?
Is the company that hired you stupid? Are you taking advantage of them?
Or does the subscription model for software only make sense when you’re the one selling it?
>If it needs to be plugged in all the time, why do you need a laptop? Why not just a desktop?
I never said it needs to be plugged in all day, I said that's where it spends most of the time. Because desktops take up way too much space and because sometimes you leave the house with your computer for work or leisure. And when I do, I don't need more than a few hours of battery because I don't like doing work outside the ergonomics of a proper desk.
>short trips, airports
And do you do a full day's work in an airport?
And when you travel via airports, you probably don't air travel in just your shorts with nothing on you, other than your phone, keys and wallet, like you're going to the local pub, but I assume you also have a backpack/bag with you for your laptop and belongings, which can also fit a <100g charger you need for your phone anyway.
There is no more evolutionary pressure on lifespan after you have children since you have successfully passed on the ‘aging’ gene.
We used to live much shorter lives, being able to die of old age was rare, therefore, no selection.
If we start to have children at 90 years old we may be able to double our lifespans (while the ones that are unable to reproduce earlier will not pass on that inability).
There is no cheating, since we could not modify our genomes and give ourselves superpowers. We cannot live forever because there was no need. We won’t die before we can successfully reproduce.
> There is no more evolutionary pressure on lifespan after you have children since you have successfully passed on the ‘aging’ gene.
This assumes, incorrectly, that each generation of children are birthed into a new separate pocket-universe, where absolutely nothing prior generations do next--including suddenly dying--can ever affect their own trajectories.
Consider genes Alpha and Beta, where Alpha kills women right after menopause, and the Beta lets them live ably to 120. Do you really think there's no difference between the trajectories of clan Alpha and clan Beta?
Or perhaps a Cronus gene [0] which increases fitness and lifespan but causes paranoid infanticide. Just because a gene-copy was made doesn't mean the gene stops mattering.
Elephant matriarchs remember old watering holes that the herd has not visited in decades, and in extreme cases, watering holes that none of the other living members have ever seen.
In drought years these backups may end up getting the herd through the worst of it.
And it turns out that for elephants, water availability is one of the biggest limitations on reproduction. Provide a population with an artificial water source and it will explode in short order.
If your offspring does not survive to reproduce, your genetic lineage disappears, therefore ‘failed’. Others who do not kill their offspring will survive and the species will therefore not exhibit that behavior nor enjoy the benefits of that behavior.
First you declared genes had no evolutionary pressure on longevity after children existed... but now you're amending it to grand-children existing?
Well, what about great-grandchildren? How many more times must you be forced to move the goalposts before realizing that the logic behind them is simply wrong?
You can't just ignore stuff like kin-selection, which we've known about for over a hundred years already.
This is just assuming that the offspring survives just like the parent and reproduces.
If the offspring requires parenting, the parent, once an offspring, also required parenting and so on.
This is not moving the goalpost, it’s doing the similar things adapted in some ways for the environment every generation.
I assumed you were talking about humans. For salmon, the definition of a successful reproductive cycle is simply reproducing. For humans, it takes longer and requires parenting. But genes don’t get selected away when it’s passed on to the next generation.
Interesting thought. So if we simply force people to reprocreate later in life, we'll select for genes that allow for that, possibly also bringing longer lifespans in general (to protect the early offspring.)
I wonder if education, and cultural protection of teenagers has already done that to some extent.
In short, the path to immortality is to hold off children longer and longer... Hypothetically.
> There is no cheating, since we cannot modify our genomes
that reads like you missed the last 10 years of genomics and the Nobel prizes for Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier, among other proven DNA/RNA manipulations.
your point could turn out true, since edits to genomes AND superpowers resulting is what you said wouldn't work. maybe the second half of the conjunctive clause isn't possible, but we don't know yet.
> Your brain at 90 is mostly useless even if you're not afflicted with a serious condition. You can't learn and adapt
You are factually incorrect. You can, in fact, learn and adapt in your 90s. Sometimes (not always) the brain has degraded and can't do so as well, but that's a problem we should work to fix. And there is some evidence to suggest that cause and effect go in both directions there: if you keep learning and adapting your brain remains more capable of doing so.
People talking about longevity and improving lifespan are primarily not talking about having people go on for centuries looking and feeling like they're 90. They're talking about having people go on for centuries or longer looking and feeling like they're 50 or better. Many of the same things that make us age and die are also what make us have much worse health (physical and mental) in our 90s than in our 40s or 50s. Fixing those things will both help us live longer and help us be healthier for longer.
I said "at 90 you can't learn and adapt like you could in your 20s".
You chose to cut off my quote so it sounds like I said something else, and argue with the strawman you created.
This alone means it's pointless discussing anything with you, as there's no basic intellectual honesty here.
If your claim is that most people at 90 are as intellectually flexible and capable as 20 year old people, that's a rather drastic deviation from basic facts of reality. Another reason it's pointless discussing anything with you.
"We should fix this"... yeah ok, fix it. We're not discussing that, but just mechanically extending days of life. Those two things are not the same thing.
While you're "fixing this" (mental performance at 90) you'll find entropy is rather unforgivable, especially for cells which can't divide so you'll have to essentially completely redo our biology in order to "fix this". Good luck.
They won't help us change our minds though. The problem with having people in their 90's capable of the same things as people in their 30's is that they'd hold positions of power longer. Old ideas would live on much longer
Because right now you don't have the option to choose, so you try to convince yourself that the only choice you have is the one you would have picked anyway. It's quite a common phenomenon, I guess a sort of survival strategy.
There is some truth in saying that science progresses one funeral at a time, and in political structures some of the most effective checks on abuse of power is that even the most shrewd dictator eventually dies.
Longevity has its benefits, but if the powerful people can become effectively immortal, then that does have some risks of dystopian stagnation. Like, imagine USSR if Stalin would never die, or Salazar and Franco still holding power in Portugal and Spain, because democracy only became possible when their health failed; and lack of change at top management of megacorporations and major privately held businesses because their owners and CEOs now can be eternal.
The idea for eternal life is to live with your 18 year old body at 200 years old, not like your 90 year old body now.
I don’t see why we shouldn’t work towards being healthier and younger for longer. The urge to survive is built into us and we can develop the means to achieve it.
That’s not how evolution works. If you do reproduce at 90 then you are by definition capable and will pass those genes on. If that is beneficial your offspring will out-compete the offspring of others whose brains turn to mush.
> People talking about eternal life disgust me. It's narcissism or infantilism in disguise.
I suspect your disgust has prevented you from actually learning what the positions of these people even are. I mean, we've had the story of "aging without dying is bad" since the ancient Greeks and Tithonus, and even for them it was a tragic mistake to forget to ask for the "no more aging please I'm fine at XYZ years" part.
No I see very frequently what "these people" have as a position, you can see it all over this thread. There's no such thing as "no aging". Age is a function of time, you can't stop time. You can hold back on the superficial traits of age, but a human is designed with an expiration date. You can stretch it, you can also cut it short, but you won't get very different productivity in the end.
But most of all. You're not special. I'm not special. Life is not special in each instance. What's special is the system, the collective result of the relentless loop of selection, evolution, adaptation.
Trying to stop death is basically to stop the loop that is life. To stop death is to enforce death. I've seen few comprehend this. You see, you're linked to your environment. Cultural, physical, what have you. As you grasp to stay the same (alive) and the environment changes, you'll naturally fight to hold back the environment from changing. Which will destroy the environment for the next generations.
Hence trying to stop death, causes death. It's not poetic or vague notion. But quite literal.
No. To stop absolutely all change is to enforce death. Aging is just one type of change amongst many that a person can experience.
You may be unable to change in any way but aging, but me?
I may mourn for the "meadow" that I saw being build when I was in infant school being turned into another housing estate when I was an adult, but I know that change is part of life.
I moved country in my mid 30s. I've visited 21 nation states, and seen how different lives can be, and tried learning far too many natural languages.
I'm a furry, so if we solve all the questions in biology (which is probably much harder than SENS, but SENS would give me time to wait), I'll see if being an actual anthropomorphic wolf suits me.
I've not found the right person to start a family with yet, but I'd like to, and I hear parenthood also changes people.
> As you grasp to stay the same (alive) and the environment changes, you'll naturally fight to hold back the environment from changing. Which will destroy the environment for the next generations.
Non sequitur.
Even the first part in isolation, "naturally" doesn't really apply any more, even if for whatever reason a biologically[0] 20-year-old mind with a century of experience is as inflexible as a natural century-old mind, rather than as flexible and open to novelty as a natural 20-year-old.
Both sentences together is even worse, making you absolutely as poetic as you say you're not.
Turtles age. I find it absurd I need to state the obvious. They age and die. They live longer because of their slow metabolism and... well they don't do much.
You'll find it curious I did think about turtles when writing the comment you're responding to. Can you spot the part where I thought about turtles? Something about total productive life? You know, sitting idle for months on end and staring at one point is not exactly what you envisage in your dreams of 150 year old humans or are you? If you want to see turtle-men, visit any nursery home, unfortunately. It's not a happy existence.
Anyway what am I doing, explaining basics to someone who just told me they're "a furry". As I noted people who dream of immortality are either narcissists, or infantile, and I'm sorry to be blunt, but describing yourself as "a furry" strikes me as a combo of both.
This is not a personal attack, but our beliefs shape our opinions, and certain extreme beliefs very much so. You can believe whatever you want to believe, beliefs are free (and most of them among humans are quite mediocre and laughable), but don't expect me to be convinced or entertain your notions.
> Can you spot the part where I thought about turtles?
The picture of a turtle at the of page, and that you stopped reading before the caption that says "some"?
That you definitely didn't look at any evidence linked to from it that directly contradicts your first claim?
And you definitely didn't read what is currently the last sentence of the first paragraph? Which reads:
"""Turtles, for example, were once thought to lack senescence, but more extensive observations have found evidence of decreasing fitness with age.[2]"""
Let alone the table further down? The one which says:
"""Maximum life span
Some examples of maximum observed life span of animals thought to be negligibly senescent are:
Rougheye rockfish 205 years[15][16]
Aldabra giant tortoise 255 years
Lobsters 100+ years (presumed)[17]
Hydras Observed to be biologically immortal[18]
Planaria Observed to be biologically immortal[19]
Sea anemones 60–80 years (generally)[20]
Red sea urchin 200 years[21]
Freshwater pearl mussel 210–250 years[22][23]
Ocean quahog clam 507 years[24]
Greenland shark 400 years[25]"""
(And just in case your eyes glazed over again: Aldabra giant tortoise: 255 years, even that list is not making the claim you're arguing against!)
Also note the distinction between negligible senescence and biological immortality.
> As I noted people who dream of immortality are either narcissists, or infantile, and I'm sorry to be blunt, but describing yourself as "a furry" strikes me as a combo of both.
- "3cats-in-a-coat" demonstrating how to throw stones in a glass house :P
Seriously though, this is all pattern matching to my earlier claim that your disgust prevented you from learning about the topic.
Your claim, which was why I chose to link to the negligible senescence page, was 'There's no such thing as "no aging"'; your claim is demonstrably false even if there's only one single example (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory etc.), so even mere hydras and planaria, simple as they are, ought to change your mind if you were not simply dismissing what you don't want to be true because you don't like it.
You sound young. Old folks that are still competitive are a force to be reckoned with. They are rare in part because people die, but also the things people compete over feel less important with age.
I'm not young. It's simply that my position is informed by biology, cybernetics and study of evolution, rather than fear of death. And this collective "we'll live forever" pat on the back we give each other is just pathetic TBH, feels very reminiscent to the "healthy at every weight" etc. movements, which seek to build a virtual reality that shields us from basic physiological facts.
Entropy is one of the most relentless forces in the universe. If we could so casually turn it around, this world would be unrecognizable.
Have you ever tried to have a real conversation with someone that old? And I don't mean whatever this cryptic rant is, but an actual attempt at connection between adults.
I don’t make any returns on that at all. I think a short sharp one off redistribution is better than endless austerity for the poor and socialism for the rich.
I’d love to hear some other proposals about how to pay our debts, I think interest payments for governments are set to surpass GDP or something. Seems like we need to find a way to tax back some of the money the super wealthy are lending to the government.
One approach, which tends to be unpopular around these parts, is to print money and hand it to people in the form of universal programs, UBI, etc. This increases inflation which makes past capital depreciate (effectively what brought down SVB) and so level the playing field for those who are currently not holding much capital, which is most people.
One of the reason it isn't very popular is that the traditional way of injecting money in the economy is by adjusting interest rates which makes it relatively neutral for capital (because they can get more interest) at the cost of the working class. As Piketty points out in his book though [1], the times where inflation was very high because of large scale government programs (like in the post WWII reconstruction era) were booming times for the middle class. The current covid recovery had unemployment rates at all times lows, well up to the point where governments decided tackling inflation was worth killing jobs.
Of course, reducing unemployment to improve returns was never popular so it's being sold to everyone by pushing a scary inflation narrative. Personally, I'd rather pay more for my boxes of cereals than being laid off.
I hope you realize that the majority of federal and state funding works as you describe with the exception that the benefits are not Universal and targeted at the poor. Wealth transfers from the rich to the poor are at an all-time high.
That doesn't make you any less of a creditor; the money in a bank account is a liability for the bank from an accounting standpoint. The bank is indebted to you for the exact amount in your bank account. How much of your money do you think should be taxed to repay debts of the poor?
How much responsibility do the rich have for a functioning society? Ever more of the money is with them after 2008 and COVID, I’m happier just saying let’s go back to say 2008 levels of inequality which would mean transferring trillions to the poor. Did the poor agree to the transfer of around $13tn in the US in printed money which largely filtered through to the rich?
There's no such thing. You're describing an aspect of capitalism (the part where capitalists benefit).
"Socialism" does not mean "benefitting from wealth redistribution". By that logic, someone like Genghis Khan could be considered the ultimate 'socialist' because he pillaged more than anyone and redistributed all that wealth to himself.
It’s like saying we should tax how stuff is transported based on how fast a human walks and how many humans it takes to transport that kind of size and weight.
We can set this metric before the wheel was invented where we could only carry stuff on our backs.
It's not like they can (short of an armed rebellion) demand to have another political party or government.
It's like saying a thug is robbing me at gunpoint so I give him my wallet. You only observe that I give my wallet therefore giving that guy my wallet was good for me and fail to observe the gun.
I personally know Paras. Brilliant guy, really fun to hang out with, and learned a lot of technical knowledge from him. He was my go-to guy (like a lot of other people in the class) to help me fix the programming problems that I can't fix quickly.
I think he hacked the school for the lolz.I dont think he even thought it would be this serious when he did it, with feds and possibly jail time. He probably just wanted to see what he could do.
Even finding out about his involvement in Mirai today, it still doesnt change what I think about his character, or his ethics. Knowing this now, I think he'll become very successful very soon.
That's horribly disappointing. The man hacked thousands of devices and used them to launch DDoSes. He attacked competing minecraft services to steal customers and generate a profit. His botnet was also used to attack Brian Krebs (security researcher) and Dyn.
This isn't up for despute- although Paras originally denied involvement in the botnet this plea agreement and his confession prove that he is both a liar and a criminal.
He may end up being a successful person in the long wrong, but that doesn't make him an ethical person.
Yeah he hacked minecraft services to generate a profit when he was 19 or 20, I wish I could do that when I was 19. I dont think I would have known better at the time either.
He's as responsible of taking down Dyn as Mikhail Kalashnikov is responsible for all the people killed by the ak-47. He simply open sourced a tool for other people to use however they like.
He took the plea to reduce the sentence and the legal expense.
They literally founded a company, "Protraf Solutions LLC", that would DDoS people for profit.
Your AK-47 claim also shows that you really don't know anything about this case and are just trying to justify why you still like your friend. They open sourced their botnet four days after they DDoSed Dyn and Krebs- it wasn't random people who used this software for the attack, it was their company that did so.
Anyone with a brain would know it's illegal, just like anyone would know selling weed is illegal unless you own a dispensary, and can get a really harsh sentence.
Sure, but selling weed generally doesn't harm anyone, while sabotaging and extorting a company directly causes harm to its owners, employees, shareholders, and customers. Not to mention the harm caused by infecting millions of people's devices to create the botnet in the first place.
