rfhjt

Update: post hidden as it's clearly missed the "be seen" window.

It's the aerial view vs the address book difference. The intent is to draw dependencies as underground pipes: you select a building and see what it's connected to.

This isn't a startup: it's just a side project that I've spent maybe 12 hours on.

It's been like that since the Stone age. The reason it's like that is the fundamental forces that drive humans: greed, cruelty, ego and all that. Hard to expect someone in power to not get more power if he's blinded by greed. How many people do you know that voluntarily spend 25% of their income on those who are lower on the social ladder? I don't know anyone, myself included.

So space expands itself at every point at a certain rate. There is an elephant in the room here: how do all the parts in space coordinate to expand at about the same steady rate? Why don't we see radically different expansion rates in different parts of the universe, e.g. stars on the left are getting further apart 10x faster than those on the right? We often use the air balloon analogy, but an air ballool is inflated by the same force which equally applies to every part of the balloon. My point is that, there is probably a simple underlying mechanism that drives space expansion and the clever nature of this mechanism would explain the relativity axiom used in GTR.

Unless we create a link between two points nearby ahead of time, wait for a billion years and then use this link to jump between the two points. In fact, I think that such links exist everywhere between any two points in space, but they remain latent in the form of quantum entanglement.

Unless we find a way to create a space links between two distant points.

That's an easy one. We hold the same chain and the distance between us is 100 links. The chain has a curious property: its links subdivide like living cells and on average 1 link takes a minute to split into 2. Thus, every minute the distance between us doubles and half hour later we'll be 1 billion times further from each other. We can replace the chain with a net or even with a 3d net.

Our awake experience is also subjective. When we look at a car, we see how it slides on 4 wheels. A deeper look reveals that the wheels aren't sliding, but rolling. What we see in our mind is simplified models, while the objective reality is much more complex, messy and not comprehensible.

I have some interesting ideas about managing software complexity in general (i.e. why this complexity inevitably snowballs and how we could deal with that), or about a better way to surf the internet (which may be a really big idea, tbh). But all these are moonshot ideas that gave a slim chance of success, while I need to pay ever raising bills. On the other hand I have a couple solid money making business ideas that I'm working on and that will bring me a few tens of millions, bit will be of no use to society, and I have a fallback plan: a corporate job with outstanding pay, but that brings exactly nothing to this world (it's about reshaping certain markets to make my employer slightly richer).

Do I deserve to be paid for 5 years for something that may not work? "Deserving" something doesn't have much meaning: we, the humans, merely transform solar energy into some fluff like stadiums and cruise ships. Getting paid just means getting a portion of that stream of solar energy. There is no reason I need to "deserve it" as it's unlimited and doesn't belong to anyone. A better question to ask is how can we change our society so that all, especially young, people would get a sufficient portion of resources to not think about paying bills.

Chances to make a breakthru are small, but that doesn't matter. It's a big numbers game: if chances are 1 to million, we let 1 billion people try and see 1000 successes. The problem currently is that we have these billions of people, but they are forces by silly constraints of our society to non stop solve fictional problems like paying rent.

This is what I meant. In our society, only very few, usually already rich, can try their own ideas. Most of us have to stick with known ideas that bring profit to business owners or meaningful visibility to universities. When I was in college, I had to work on ideas approved by my professor. Now I have to work on ideas approved by my corporation. But if I had money, I'd work on something completely different. Sure, in 15 I will be rich and can start doing my own stuff, but I'll also be old and my ability will be nowhere near the peak at 25 years.

The need to generate publishable papers means that a researcher can only participate in activity that leads to such a paper. He can't try to work on that idea for 5 years, because if no big papers follow, he's toast /he'd probably lose funding long before that).

And I disagree violently. The deepmind folks are on salary and every year they need to prove that they are worth the money. This applies to Demis himself: he needs to prove that his org deserves this gaziliion of dollars per year.

I merely meant that top mathematicians are substantially smarter and can work with concepts that are beyond the reach of even top programmers. We are generally good at recombining existing building blocks and using existing tools. Mathematicians can build new concepts. If I had the money, I'd try to convince the top mathematicians to work on AI full time.

Fwiw, after a certain amount of pain, brain "transcends it": everything disappears, there are some curious colors here and there, but there is no pain. Experienced that during an in ear infection.