An intern at work once asked me what a CD was and I had to explain that it was a vinyl for computers.

WOO.

I want a wallpaper.

I hardly have a doctor (Who can afford that?) but I use the insurance website to search for nearby providers because coverage is most important to me. Then, I look at reviews of their offices on Google Maps before calling to see if they’re taking new patience for final selection.

Well, they won’t be accessing my personal folders and files because I just won’t use Windows. Thanks but no thanks. That’s really creepy.

The meme is so nerdy I love it.

It is effective at discouraging bots when looking at real world services today, but indeed you have found the primary downside. It does impose costs on users even if the costs are disproportionately placed on bots.

The best part is there’s already a default error handler! If the program dies, you know there was an error.

It saves no energy. In fact, it costs more energy at first, but the hope is that bots will turn their attention to something that isn’t so expensive as hitting your servers. The main goal is to get your service online so that you’re not burning all your own resources on fake users.

Your understanding is consistent with mine. It spends a small amount of effort (per user) that makes scaling too expensive (per bot-farm-entity). It also uses an adjustable difficulty that can vary depending on how sus a request appears to be.

It’s not a perfect solution by any means. It doesn’t protect user data. It doesn’t do anything to help with the energy problem. It merely makes it possible for someone to run their server without getting taken offline by automated systems.

It works by asking your system for a small computation before handling the request. It’s not too intrusive for normal users, but it drives up the costs for bot farms.

Can the universe not also approximate? Why must it be an exact result whenever a rule is applied?

I take issue with completeness in a very similar way. For example, imagine for some reason that in the simulation it’s impossible to think about penguins. Let’s say that penguins are so logically incomprehensible that we cannot implement this.

The implementation of the simulation could simply trap any attempt to think about penguins and replace it with something else. We would be none the wiser. The simulation still works even if there are states that we can’t get to or are undefined.

It could be that reality itself isn’t entirely complete and defined everywhere. Who’s to say this isn’t one big dream and that the sky isn’t there if we all stopped looking?

There is no escape from Plato‘s cave.

Dr. Faizal says the same limitation applies to physics. “We have demonstrated that it is impossible to describe all aspects of physical reality using a computational theory of quantum gravity,” he explains.

“Therefore, no physically complete and consistent theory of everything can be derived from computation alone.”

Your argument is bad and you should feel bad.

Impossible to describe does not mean that it’s not possible to simulate, and impossible is an incredibly strong criterion that sounds quite inaccurate to me. We simulate weather systems all the time, even though the systems are fundamentally chaotic and it’s impossible to forecast accurately. We don’t even know that gravity is quantum, so that’s quite a weird starting point but we’ll ignore that for a second. What is this argument?

This seems like a huge leap to conclude that just because some aspects of our understanding seem like we wouldn’t be able to fully describe them somehow means that the universe can’t be simulated.

“Drawing on mathematical theorems related to incompleteness and indefinability, we demonstrate that a fully consistent and complete description of reality cannot be achieved through computation alone,” says Dr. Faizal.

Who’s to say that reality is completely defined? Perhaps there are aspects to what we consider the real universe that are uncertain. Isn’t that foundational to quantum mechanics?

I’m not sure it matters if it’s legal or not anymore these days.

Still, they can legally demand any recordings from you if they reasonably can know that such recordings exist. Generally they will need a warrant or they may subpoena you for the evidence that they know you have. You can even be arrested for erasing your own footage as destruction of evidence.

Obligatory statement that I am not a lawyer and this isn’t legal advice.

Unless you’re self hosting your own cameras, just don’t. If you don’t control the data then it’s somebody else’s camera.

I’m deeply proud of Python for standing by its community and making the right decision.

It might be a bubble, but bubbles can last a long time. Here are some famous quotes to illustrate the problem:

“Markets can remain irrational a lot longer than you and I can remain solvent." – A. Gary Shilling, twice named Wall Street’s top economist.

“Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections, or trying to anticipate corrections, than has been lost in corrections themselves.” – Peter Lynch, American investor, mutual fund manager, author and philanthropist.

We know evaluations are high. We know that AI has not delivered on its promises at least not yet. Investor confidence remains high, but for how long? Nobody knows.

Personally, I think any correction will swiftly bounce because the government will print money to make sure there’s a speedy recovery. We have seen a push to boosting the economy through intensive money printing instead of allowing valuations to crash properly. The Fed loves to kick the can down the road more than anything.

Sir, this is a Wendy’s Linux meme community.