LogicalBorg

The Millennium Problems list in math was created in 2000, hence the name. There is a $1 million prize for solving any of the problems. Creating this list is just someone's idea of listing problems of equal importance. The name doesn't fit and it's just a list.

> To prevent deleting data by mistake, we invent soft-delete pattern by having a is_deleted column. However, this brings extra complexities around foreign key, unique index enforcement. Ideally, PostgreSQL could allow users to configure an archived table. The removed data is moved to the archived table first and purged after a configured retention period. This simplifies application logic and data compliance work.

You can get the same result by changing your is_deleted boolean field to a date_deleted date field. Then use a cron to purge all the records with dates older than the configured retention period.

I think that User-Centered Design (UCD) would be a better term here for what this concept is trying to say. In modern design, we tell user stories that help guide development of interfaces, including APIs.

I think there are two versions of the simulation hypothesis. The first version is that we are in a simulation that is run in the future with ourselves as ancestors. The second version is that we're simulated by aliens.

The first version seems wrong to me. Time is not a random variable. Either it is really the year 2019 and no such simulations of 2019 exist yet, or it is really the year 2100 and the year 2019 doesn't exist anymore. You can't choose at random between different years since they don't exist at the same time.

The alien version doesn't have that problem but it's also implausible since aliens have not been proven to exist and there is no particular reason for aliens to simulate us.

This discussion reminds me of Elon Musk's interest in traveling to Mars. Imagine you want to go to Mars and are too lazy to build a rocket to go there. So instead you go out to the desert to a place that looks exactly like Mars. Then you say this place in the desert looks exactly like a million places on Mars. You pick a place at random, which means that you inevitably pick a place on Mars. Then you say, "The odds are a million to one that I'm not standing on Mars right now! Because I picked Mars!"

That argument is just as bogus as the simulation argument. Probability isn't a cheap form of space travel and it's not a cheap form of time travel either. If you want to stand on Mars you're going to have to build an actual rocket and go there, not a probability experiment. If you want to experience virtual reality you're going to have to build it. You can't just probability it into existence by wishful thinking.

The total population is expected to increase by a billion people by 2030, which is 50 times larger than the expected maximum of 20 million jobs lost. Why would you assume that those 1 billion people are going to find jobs except somehow 20 million people are not? Ordinary population growth is by far the bigger story here.

What a terrible article.

They are unequal devices. - This is not a design flaw. The screen is just small.

They are not real network clients. - This is not a design flaw. It's the best batteries can do.

They have led to massive centralization. - No, high bandwidth and big data requiring centralized processing is what led to centralization.

They have ruined web design. - This isn't even a critique of smartphones, it's about desktops.

There are no secure smartphones. - Are they really worse than other computers?

They are devices of unclear alignment, or of clear malevolence. - Wait, what? You claim that your phone is not secure, then you want to root it, install arbitrary software, and do your online banking on it? wtf?

This story made me think of an analogy about robot emotions. I use Alexa and she has a cheerful female voice. I could argue that Alexa has real emotions. Here's my argument. Imagine that a TV show has real emotions even though it is a recording, because real human emotions were involved in creating the show. The actors knew they were faking it, but their feelings are still real human feelings. In the same way, a robot can reflect the emotions of the person who created it. A cheerful person will create a robot that has a cheerful personality, and a helpful person will create a robot that tries to be helpful. So robots display human values and emotions in the same sense as a recorded TV show even though they are only reflecting the original emotions. In this sense, we can describe robot emotions as real.

Well, let's be scientific about this. If Bill Gates is willing to write me a check for 640K, I'll be happy to test his theory for him. ;-)

The way I see it, there are at least four criteria for using a blockchain.

1. The goods are permanent, otherwise you don't need the history of the blockchain.

2. The goods are valuable, otherwise they aren't worth tracking.

3. The goods are identifiable, otherwise you can't tell that the good you received was the one on the blockchain.

4. The goods came from a trusted third party, otherwise they can receive non-compliant goods and pass them off as their own.

Tracking food on the blockchain fails at all four criteria.

Cryptocurrency passes all four tests. It is permanent, valuable, identifiable, and the third party producer of the coin is trusted because they pass a mathematical test.

Diamonds might also pass the tests, as long as there are trusted third parties in the diamond industry who won't receive bad diamonds.