phs318u

I contacted them via the web form. Let’s see how long it takes to get fixed. It would be funny if this was related to a publishing process issue and they all start coming out with lorem ipsum.

Not sure whether your or my having heard of a site before necessarily discounts it, especially given the closeness (or at least fear) of many larger media outlets with this administration.

Having said that, I couldn’t see the full article on Wired. I don’t have an account and I suspect many don’t. I could see it via archive.is.

Yes really.

The data is said to have been “vetted and cleaned up” and the front end is designed to navigate the hierarchy.

The leak was via a compromised Okta SSO login (why anyone still uses them is a complete mystery to me).

I get that a lot of folks were traumatised by the shift from init based systems to systemd. However the architecture is sound and relatively straightforward given the inherent complexity in managing a diversity of system processes.

EDITED TO ADD: If you’re looking for a UNIX anti-hero regarding “do one thing and do it well” (that predates systemd), look no further than emacs.

lol. Even among a party crowded with self-serving grifters and imbeciles, who would be insane enough to nominate Trump as VP? The mind boggles at the thought.

> please stop chatting with me and vice versa.

Dude submits on HN knowing full well that submissions attract comments. Responds to comment with please don’t comment on my submission and I won’t respond to your comments either. Is there a name for this kind of illogical behaviour? Where saying a thing instantly negates the thing you’re saying?

You forgot the /s

Which is an interesting argument because: do neurons somehow create a soul (as you mentioned), or are do neurons somehow attract souls, or do souls choose what to inhabit. In the first case it posits that a “soul” is purely a function of biology. In the others that there’s some sort of inextricable link between the two (which in the absence of any theory of soul or how these are linked to biology, seems rather far fetched, unless of course souls could choose to inhabit anything with sufficient degrees of freedom: a brain, a mega computer, a planet, a galaxy)

I agree that as per current understanding, the functional biological base units have more degrees of freedom and a greater functional diversity as a result, but that’s merely a quantitative difference not a fundamental distinction. One could imagine equally more complex silicon base units beyond what we have now. Whether they need to follow the same pattern/modes as the biological units remains to be seen (but it’s pretty hard to argue against evolution as an efficiency maximiser).

I get the sense that there is a school of thought I’d call “biological exceptionalism”, a belief that somehow constructs made up of many functionally simple units, is fundamentally different and special compared to a similar construct composed of silicon units. I can’t see how someone could hold this belief and be a materialist (I’m not implying you are btw). Biological exceptionalism surely implies the existence of a “soul” or “spirit” (which raises a whole bunch more questions).

So many questions! Since we still don’t understand consciousness how can we draw a line to stay on the right side of? Is consciousness correlated with intelligence or independent of it? What if we keep growing these organoids until they are near-human-brain sized. We know that such things can host a consciousness yet not always eg. “brain dead”.

What if the only reason we don’t believe they are conscious is because they have no mouth to scream with?

Also, it occurs to me that a right-to-lifer would have to be against such biotech to remain consistent.

I find it all incredibly fascinating but ethically highly fraught.