Readit Newschristudor commented on How ancient people saw themselves worldhistory.substack.com... · Posted by u/crescit_eundo
Vaguely relevant: the biological symbol for female (the circle with a cross below it) is a stylisation of a hand holding a hand mirror.
christudor commented on AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns philarchive.org/archive/S... · Posted by u/ICBTheory
FTA:
> Strange, isn't it? The AI hasn’t crashed. It’s still running.
As a human I answer a question because my time to do so is finite. Why can't we just ask an AI to give its best answer in due time ? As a human I can do that easily. Will my answer be optimal ? No of course, but every manager on earth do that all the time. We're all happy with approximate answers. (and I would add: approximation are sometimes based on our core values, instinct, consciousness, etc.. All things that make us humans, IOW not machines)
G. E. Moore (in his Principia Ethica, 1903) makes a very similar case to this relation to consequentialist ethics:
"The first difficulty in the way of establishing a probability that one course of action will give a better total result than another, lies in the fact that we have to take account of the effects of both throughout an infinite future. We have no certainty but that, if we do one action now, the Universe will, throughout all time, differ in some way from what it would have been, if we had done another; and, if there is such a permanent difference, it is certainly relevant to our calculation.
But it is quite certain that our causal knowledge is utterly insufficient to tell us what different effects will probably result from two different actions, except within a comparatively short space of time; we can certainly only pretend to calculate the effects of actions within what may be called an ‘immediate’ future. No one, when he proceeds upon what he considers a rational consideration of effects, would guide his choice by any forecast that went beyond a few centuries at most; and, in general, we consider that we have acted rationally, if we think we have secured a balance of good within a few years or months or days."
"none" is saying something about all of the players, so how would that be singular? The word "none" is always used in a plural context, like if there is only one player then you won't say "none of the player"
I'm talking about the verb that follows 'none', not the noun.
'None of the team was [singular] prepared' and 'None of the team were [plural] prepared' are both correct.
I know this is not the right place for this but english is not my first language.
How is "have" the correct verb here? Shouldn't it be "has"? Like, the crew is the subject, and it has 35 seconds.
I'm trying to understand what I'm missing here, because I'm sure BBC did not make a mistake
If a noun denotes a group of people – even if it's technically a singular noun – it's okay (but not compulsory) to use a plural verb.
The sentences 'Real Madrid have performed well this year' and 'Real Madrid has performed well this year' are both grammatically acceptable, and probably used roughly the same amount.
A related example is the word 'none' (= 'not one'). Technically it should govern a singular verb (e.g. 'None of the players is good enough') but you'll now see it a lot with a plural verb (e.g. 'None of the players are good enough').
christudor commented on Ask HN: What were the best books you read this year? · Posted by u/christudor
Read a lot this year — a lot more than most years. A few highlights:
The making of the atomic bomb by Richard Rhodes was probably the best of the bunch. I read it because I see some parallels between the discovery of atomic power and the search for AGI, and wanted an insight on the ethics and decision making of the time. It didn't disappoint.
The dawn of everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow was a solid read and retelling of how civilization began and evolved.
The message by Ta-Nehisi Coates, I read in two sittings — it was that impactful. A reminder of how the oppressed becomes the oppressor again and again. "As it happens, you can See the world but never see the people in it"
Other highlights: The Anxious Generation by Jonathan Haidt; re-read Thinking in Systems by Daniella Meadows; re-read Wherever You Go There You Are by Jon Kabat Zinn; The light eaters by Zoe Schlanger; I don't want to talk about it, by Terrence Real.
The Making of the Atomic Bomb is in my top three non-fiction books I have ever read.
Will I like The Dawn of Everything if I didn't like Harari's Sapiens? (I loved Graeber's Debt: The First 5000 Years)
christudor commented on Ask HN: What were the best books you read this year? · Posted by u/christudor
I finally read Nabokov's Pale Fire. It is far and away the best book I have ever read. I think about it multiple times a week unprompted and I'm sad because I am certain that I will never find another book like it.
Read a few years ago and agree with this assessment. A genuine work of genius, and probably in my top five books of all time.
christudor commented on Ask HN: What were the best books you read this year? · Posted by u/christudor
Reentry by Eric Berger. It came out in October. It's a follow up to his book Liftoff from 2021. Great books for space nerds. Makes me really admire what Space X has accomplished while also eliminating any desire I had to work for them.
Liftoff is already on my list, actually! Thought I'd read that one first before deciding whether to get Reentry.
christudor commented on Ask HN: What were the best books you read this year? · Posted by u/christudor
Nuclear War: A Scenario, by Annie Jacobsen. It's a short book, with second-by-second description of the unfolding of a research-based hypothetical nuclear war that starts with North Korea launching an ICBM towards the United States. Alarming (as only the facts about the parlous state of detection and defence can alarm) and edifying in one.
Read this earlier this year -– enjoyable!