Funny you mention this because I have a child with (severe) Autism and with so much misinformation out there about Autism I was blown away that her video about this topic was so spot on and incredibly well researched. In particularly she nailed the so called "neurodiversity movement" and its many problems it causes quite well.
It is ironic, but MIT license definitely does not require attribution from websites using the code on the backend (otherwise you'd see a rather large attribution list at the bottom of Google.com or any website...)
Actually no it isn't proof of anything, the site is highly misleading, it's just searching for similar images using CLIP image embeddings and then claiming those must be the source. https://twitter.com/kurumuz/status/1622379532958285824
Your perspective doesn't seem exactly common in hackernews and I appreciate it.
1) I gotta say though when you talk of "the observer" it throws me off as it sounds like the typical quantum woo twisting of the observer effect, perhaps you meant something else? what do you mean by "the observer"?
2) Regarding "the universe is ordered and can be described with a set of rules. There is no full evidence of this, it's just an assumption." this has proven so far to be a good assumption (as seen by the massive amount of scientific knowledge and verified predictions accumulated) and if anything it seems all evidence points to exactly this. Is there evidence that there the universe is more than just 'a pile of particles'? (although that is a somewhat simplistic way to put it)
3) Trying to distill the comment, it seems the main argument is along the lines of "science can't explain life itself and/or consciousness, therefore there must be more" is that a fair assessment? and in that case what would you convince you of the oposite? for e.g what if "life" is well understood and can be reproduced in a lab etc.. what if we can reproduce most human-like intelligence with AI, etc... in other words, what would (realistically) change your mind to the opposite?
I'm just making the case that the spiritualist argument is rational.
Humans in every culture since the dawn of time have referred to 'spirit' or that which seems to animate matter.
Yes - 'laws of the universe' we take as a given because they seem to work for us, in paper fairly well.
But you know what we also take as 'a given'? That you are alive.
'Your life' is kind of more important to you than science. Life itself, and the expression of it, seems to be our #1 concern.
That once branch of thought, Scientific Materialism doesn't by definition allow for life to exist, doesn't deny the nature of life.
1) Not 'quantum observer' - your spirit, soul, or some other scientific description. The word doesn't matter.
2) The evidence the universe is more than a pile of particles is life itself. And consciousness.
3) "Science can't explain life" - it's worse: Scientific Materialism rules it out completely by definition. If we decided that 'the universe is mathematical rules' - then - 'there is no life'. Creating life in a test-tube probably won't give us the answer.
FYI Science also has a problem describing why simple objects can ultimately make up very complicated ones with different problems, it's called 'emergence', it's a field of study.
Finally, I'll refer you to the the concept of 'biocentrism' - which is a more material outlook at the subject without getting so overtly metaphysical, and it's done by real scientists. [1]
My view, of course, every decision as a trade-off, everything i say is controversial
- The main ledger and smart contracts should be separated, everyone smart contract is public, why??
the smart contracts should be run on several specific sidechains.
Why if I buy a crypto kittie everyone as to know and store the transaction for all eternity.
Wait sharding is coming, yes but will reduce the security guarantees.
There are different solutions for that in the works, from sharding to plasma, etc.. and those have their own challenges & tradeoffs (namely in terms of security, etc..)
However engineering decisions 'on genesis' was over 3-4 years ago and at that time doing a blockchain with smart contracts was already challenge on itself. It's not really fair to take the knowledge and lessons from the present day and claim those in the past without that knowledge made horrible decisions. It's a bit like blaming google for not starting angular 1 with the functionality of angular 4, or saying that John Resig should have created Babel and ES7 features instead of creating jQuery.
> However engineering decisions 'on genesis' was over 3-4 years ago and at that time doing a blockchain with smart contracts was already challenge on itself. It's not really fair
Sorry when I heard about Ethereum plans 4 years ago, I tough it as a terribly bad idea then (I didn't invest because of this, I should have invested stupid me) in 2013 the increase size of blockchain was already an ongoing problem, I simply tought if a decentelized ledger is already problematic to store, let's put a lot of more information on it, it's madness..
I didn't know this project I normally hate ICO's (including the original Ethereum ICO) from what I have read on the information you so kindly shared it looks like a much more sensible approach to the distributed permissionless application problem, let's see how it goes.
The whole point of a blockchain is publicly accessible records of the transactions. Why not run your cryptokitties on a private server then? The performance and efficiency would destroy your blockchain version but no one can see what is happening so it can be verified by everyone as true.
This wasn't a flaw with Ethereum itself or its protocol, but rather an issue with one of the its client implementations (go-ethereum), other clients like Parity, Harmony, etc.. are unaffected.
The article states it's only been discovered and mitigated in geth, allegedly the most popular ethereum client; whether other clients are vulnerable is unknown.
This statement from ethereum/geth developer Felix Lange even hedges on how completely the vulnerability has been mitigated, which may not bode well for ethereum in general:
>We have done our best to mitigate the attacks within the limits of the protocol. The paper is concerned with 'low-resource' eclipse attacks. As far as we know, the bar has been raised high enough that eclipse attacks are not feasible without more substantial resources...
He did go on to mention his belief alternative ethereum client Parity isn't vulnerable, so there's that at least.
Is there any other field of computer security where this argument is acceptable? Usable security matters. Ecosystems matter. You cannot put a boundary somewhere in the middle of what the end user sees and call your security job done.
When people majorly botch x509 cert validation because the spec is so monstrously complex that's still a problem with x509.
Ethereum specifically chose to develop around multiple clients to mitigate the risks of implementation errors such as this. It would be ideal if all were perfect from the start, but no software is, security or otherwise.
- This update was announced almost 2 years ago from the very beginning
- Multiple Discussions in EIPs
- Multiple public dev meetings, with youtube recordings, discussions, etc..
