vokep

This got me to some interesting thinking. If the library contains no information because you need the information you look for, what about the ability of it to at least match to information you look for? Or put another way, the library does begin to have information if you have the information you're looking for. The fact of finding the particular information is different than the library not containing it.

I can't seem to figure out how to type this out in a way that maks sense but basically I'm thinking when an AI like GPT-3 is working its sort of sorting through the library of babel and finding words. Or when speaking its as though the library of babel is at immediate call in the brain, which sorts through near instantly finding the book that satisfies the next word. The website that allows browsing the library helps show what I mean, you can look on it and click random and search for information in it. The thing itself contains "no information" but it also does as in this case you may find something (first page I saw had the word 'beef')

I wish I could look at this as a joke...haha

It's a new implementation of the same thing, but now with no team, no servers, no company, just some code that runs on the blockchain (which is a ton of servers lol)

Is this really a meaningful thing? I mean, of course it is somewhat in terms of how things are viewed. But, theres no religious law that NFTs must be a pure blockchain thing. Possibly they're finding their niche, and that is to be a sort of intermediate, which uses traditional systems as the origin of verification/trust, but can then go forward on its own with no further verification. (Of course, your wallet keys could be stolen and used to impersonate you, but the same is true for login credentials of twitter blue checkmarks)

But they aren't. They're pieces of cardboard with a particular story. The card has no value itself, which is why a rookie card isn't very valuable, unless its of someone famous. Why? because one is a story right at the beginning, which may not even be a good one, where there other has an established success story behind it. Owning the card is representative of owning a chunk of that story. You can say its arbitrary, but the fact is the picture on the card is of a real person with a real story, and their image on the card is part of literally that same story.

So with NFTs, its the same, anyone can write a document that says "this certifies ownership of a picasso painting" and it doesn't mean much of anything. However if Picasso writes up a document broadcasts somehow he has done so and the document says you own x painting, then its easy enough to certify to anyone that you own a Picasso from the man himself. The story is not arbitrary, this is precisely why it has value. The arbitrary easily copied stuff is cheap and meaningless and known as such. The "rare" NFTs and stuff selling for massive prices is expensive because it is genuinely so. You can write a comment here about how easily you can create a counterfeit NFT, but how easily can you actually convince someone to buy it from you? You can observe that baseball cards are just pieces of cardboard but how easily can you acquire a card printed when batter X was a rookie?

I'm not saying this sort of value is easily quantifiable, but it is easily observable, identifiable that its reflective of a real element of reality and not (entirely) arbitrarily imagined.

There are taxes as mining fees

Who says neural networks aren't in pain when their fitness (reward function) is subtracted from? or happy or orgasmic when the function is bumped up?

Pain/pleasure seem to have easy enough analogue to at least something like a reward function, but what really gets me is colors. I feel like if honestly considered, the word "color" is all that's necessary to disprove materialism. Color is. How? Dunno.

Then the fact anything is would be wrong, which if believed truly leads the only reasonable behavior to be the most destructive behavior (what is, existence, is bad, so destroying it is good).

Luckily, its good.

But it does mean mirrors might be humans/human-like, if humans are actually reducable to (self-aware) mirrors.

Its incredible to think the shape was only discovered in the last few years and not earlier in computing history (80s/90s or earlier). Just goes to show there is still much to be discovered.

This is what I come to hacker news for!

The rate of recovery after first dose, directly correlated with it was plain and clear. If you take a drug and experience significant effects within hours of taking it, you don't question if you randomly would've felt that way anyways, you know exactly whats causing it. This person was getting nearer and nearer to hospitalization possibly, when someone in that situation has a 180 in condition just hours after a dose of treatment, you don't question "oh maybe the treatment did nothing at all".

I understand of course questioning causation/correlation, except when something is so absolute and its life and death, its criminal and morally devoid to deny access to treatment.

It works. Look deeper into it if you really care, or stop saying anything against it. If you don't know someone with covid who's been treated with it, how can you take your own opinion seriously? You can question about the reality of how effective it is of course, but its wrong to argue against something that is harmless and may be life saving.

Of several covid stories of people around me, I've never heard of a recovery like this one. No long haul, nothing at all, everything fits a definition of having been cured. In a few days. Able to do strenuous activity without issue. All the no-treatment recoveries I'm aware of were fairly slow processes over weeks.

I've personally seen it help someone who was getting significantly worse day after day. The effect was undeniable, and makes it infuriating to see claims of the drug as being dangerous or needing more study. Because the FDA is the FDA doesn't mean what they're publishing isn't misinformation. The dose used was about the same as would be used for malaria, within hours of the first dose there was already massive improvement in breathing and overall energy. After further doses it wasn't long before complete recovery. To deny easy access to this sort of thing, for doctors not to offer it as an option when a patient is found to have covid, is criminal.

Where is the basis of any of the FDA's claims? Because the mechanism of action isn't fully understood? Does it matter when it saves lives?

Many of these stories would be prevented if ivermectin was more readily available. Yet the first thing that comes up when googling it is the FDA making baseless claims of it being dangerous. Of course it can be dangerous when people have to turn to questionable sources instead of being able to get it from their doctor with instructions for use.