darkmighty

> but that's a bit more philosophical

It sounds exactly the same, not more philosophical to me, except one is more inconvenient.

The entire planet taken as a whole is already a form of universal constructor ;)

Indeed, but then you can (for example) just basically blocklist this ID and share this blocklist with other servers (and likewise import blocklists) -- a blocklist curated by one or more NGOs or the sort would be ideal.

Fixing a malware infection should be like fixing up anything else broken around your house (clean things up, re-auth yourself with the ID verifier, done).

Also, bots cannot simply automate renewing the credentials of course, after expiry you should be required to physically (or in a trustworthy digital medium) re-authenticate yourself preventing any kind of mass attack, you'd need millions of people to perform authentication multiple times a day (by that point it seems safe to assume they'd rather fix the malware source in their personal devices).

Maybe, but at least you can more easily assign responsibility in this case. If you soft-block or hard-block someone because they're in a botnet, you can get them to change (expire the old ones) their credentials and start with clean systems. Maybe they'll realize their TV is part of a botnet if they have to keep doing it, or their PC has malware.

> rather than moving to a challenge system that actually impacts scrapers

At this point isn't it basically auth-only?

Rant: (genuinely wondering too, and RFC, request for conversation) at this point don't we have Google, etc. basically doing Real World ID Verification, but without an open protocol backing, using it to corral users into their ecosystem and gather data, and leaving us without some open and distributed alternative like the (fairly well working it seems to me) Public Key infrastructure? (PKI)

I know Sam Altman (with Proof of Human or w/e) and others have suggested and also have their own alternative (which I think is basically what Google already does), but I think this should simply be built based on an open protocol and then hopefully not-too-large (and with a healthy competition) local companies could do it for you.

:´)

Game theory is not inevitable, because we can change the rules of the game.

> It's also true that you, personally, are just one of those 8B+ people

Unless you communicate and coordinate!

Does it need to be objective though? I think a vague list of criteria including "The project must benefit a community", or "The project must not be made solely for the benefit of their employer", and have someone review the proposal should be enough.

There is no concrete definition of a chair either.

I'd describe it as like having a second monitor in your desktop. It's not inherently "over" what I already see or anywhere physical, it's like in a different space. Sometimes it can feel like it's "behind" what I am seeing indeed (i.e. kind of over), but it can vary and I suspect that's just a learned position (I just tried and I can shift the position images 'feel where they are').

I don't see with full fidelity, I suspect that's to save power or limitations of my neural circuitry. But I can definitely see red and see shapes. Yes, it's not exactly like seeing with your eyes and if you pay attention you can sense there's trickery involved (particularly with motion being very low fidelity, kind of low FPS), but it's still definitely an image. It's not that it's a blurred image exactly, more that it only generates some details I am particularly focused at. It can't generate a huge quantity of details for an entire scene in 4K, it's more like it generates a scene in 320p and some minor patches can appear at high res, and often the borders are fuzzy. I can imagine this with my eyes open or closed, but it's easier with eyes closed.

It feels (and probably is?) that it's the same system used for my dreams, but in my dreams it's more like "setup" to simulate my own vision, and the fidelity is increased somewhat.

It's not like life stops when someone (with a grave an irreversible condition that causes suffering) dies. It goes on with the young generations (i.e. the billions of them!). I think too much clinging to a single life causes the whole (which is more important) to suffer. That's not to say we shouldn't value and respect elders, but clinging to life excessively is ignorant and potentially cruel, in my humble opinion. I defend the right to die in the face of incurable diseases that cause a lot of anguish and suffering.

I think clinging to life is partially rooted in an egoist/solipsistic metaphysics that you yourself are all that matters (to yourself at least, of course). Relax, we're just a small part of the cosmos. Ancient and immortal :)

> graphics drivers all seem to have tweaks, settings, optimizations and workarounds for every game.

Maybe hyperbole, but I think obviously they can't do this for literally every game, that would require huge personnel resources. At least looking at mesa (linked elsewhere), only ~200 games are patched, out of what 100k PC games? So <1%.

This seems like a bit of an empty moral panic/slippery slope appeal. As a general rule, it could go either way: civilizations can also collapse from not-enough-regulation, not-enough-rule of law, oligarchic capture, or even just become a megacorporation dystopia without collapsing for a long time, maybe ever. Better to critique the specific case, if you have any objections.

Reply to dead comment below: (by nmz)

Keep trying. It's all you can do. Also, you can't expect everyone to accept your facts. A few % of the population are going to be nutjobs (specially when there are various propaganda networks around which compound it), and that's fine, thankfully I think they aren't majority.

Not just lower the temperature. Talk to each other, and listen carefully, in a civilized manner. Prefer to listen carefully first, then speak. Bring, and stick to, facts as much as possible, and focus on policy and real-world outcomes rather than politics.