expcloudios下载-香蕉加速器官网正版

I remember when I lost my dad. I don't mean when he died -- that was many years later when he never woke up after heart-valve surgery. The hospital workers kept letting my mother, my sisters and I in for short visits throughout the day which consisted of us quietly watching his unconscious body slowly turn purple as it lost the ability to absorb oxygen. Somehow we were supposed to be deriving comfort from this, or perhaps we were supposed to be a comfort to him despite the obvious fact that he was deeply comatose and utterly insensible, which was probably a good thing. I went through about three rounds of this before I gave up and left. My father was gone and staring at his near-corpse wasn't helping anyone. I've never regretted that decision.

No, the time I'm thinking of was when I lost my dad the first time. I remember he was driving me somewhere. That happened a lot because I stubbornly resisted getting my own car until I was 21. I'm bad with remembering dates, but my guess would be this was sometime around my last year in high-school or my first year in college. Just after both my parents had become Reagan Democrats in 1980. We were just making small talk, and I was probably answering his queries with grunts and monosyllables. I believe he brought up the subject of crime and criminals. Some criminals, he said he had come to realize, didn't seem fully human. If you just look at their faces, he continued, they look like throwbacks. Like apes.

I was an extremely white boy growing up in the affluent white suburbs of Palo Alto. My unearned privilege wrapped me like a warm security blanket inside a panic room inside a gated community. But even I recognized that he was talking about black people. He was using the same language as people I'd read about in US history. Even I could recognize racism.

My father and I never had much in common. Although he was an engineer and chemist he always considered that his career, and instead he truly enjoyed sports and the outdoors. I liked science and movies, while sports I hated with the heat of a thousand suns. He mostly thought the things I liked were stupid. He thought Star Wars was fine but not that big a deal. He tried to get me do sports at various times in my growing up which would always end in disaster. Sometimes when I would watch Creature Features Friday nights as a kid he'd sit down and start to watch with me. I would kind of hold my breath hoping he would enjoy the movie and stay. Sometimes he did watch all the way to the end, and even though he would make fun of it afterword I could tell he'd kind of liked it. It was validating.

But one thing I'd always felt we shared was our morality. After all he and my mother raised me -- where else would I be getting my sense of right and wrong but from them? They were, as far as I can be sure of anything, in favor of fairness, truth and honesty, and especially justice, including racial justice. I know they were because I am. There's no reality where my parents are secret racists so secret that they keep it from their own children. My father was a good person. "Was" being the operative word.

I once called a dinner guest of theirs racist. My parents hosted many large, raucous dinner parties when I was growing up in the 70's. At some point after my sisters left for college I was also invited to join, although the parties were more demur by that point. One night it was my parents, this one guest who I think was a relative of my mom, and myself. She had a southern accent and was telling a story of some kind. I forget the details but in some sudden moment of clarity I said "That's racist." I explained my view and I recall my reasoning being pretty sound (I think the event in question would be closer to what we today call appropriation). She was furious (because being called racist is the worst form of racism) and launched into a defense based on the premise that she had also felt pain because of racism. I apologized and the conversation moved on.

Later my dad thanked me for apologizing. I understood that -- I could have ruined the evening and I was raised better than that. He also said that he thought my argument was interesting. That he had never thought about what she was talking about being a kind of racism. He said he would think about it more. That made sense to me because my father did not want to be a racist.

And yet here we are, a few years later, him talking like a racist. Not just racism but the absolute worst kind of 19th century-style garbage science. I was stunned. I remained silent, and the conversation moved on.

Looking back I see what must have happened. Reagan won his campaign by using racist dog whistles. While it was still many years before Fox News the right wing media machine was getting revved up. That toxic, racist, garbage ideology was starting to seep into the mainstream, into places like quiet, affluent Palo Alto, where it started to poison the minds of otherwise good people like my father. There was another party, quite a few years later when I was out of college and reasonably successful, when my mother told me that dad was happy. He was happy that all his children had turned out to be "contributors," that we were contributing to society.  It meant nothing at the time but now looking back I can see it. He was talking about "makers" vs "takers", that hideous Randian belief that only capitalists deserve their wealth and everyone else is a leach. Even back then it was poisoning an otherwise good man's mind.

I don't blame him. This wasn't his fault. He was corrupted and damaged by a system we built ourselves or allowed to be built. It can and must be dismantled before it robs more children of their parents. I will always remember my dad as a good man, and I have at least absorbed some of his love of sailing.

I wrote recently about how I think that capitalism is incompatible with -- indeed inimical to -- any meaningful human incursion into space. (Or robot for that matter. Sure we have a few robot probes, but they haven't been carving out a presence in space. When space robots start building new things out there, give me a call.) This is a position I arrived at while working on my (now defunct) science-fiction blog. Here's what I wrote then:

Space exploration was largely impossible in the Financial Age. Science had to ride the coattails of industry, and space travel could not be monetized unless the price was low. But space travel was enormously expensive, and it could not be made cheap without massive investment in research and infrastructure that no one was willing to make. It was a giant game of chicken -- any corporation that spent the money to make space travel affordable would have opened the way for others to exploit their investment. Whoever made the first move would lose, so the vast potential of space went unrealized.

The "Financial Age" is the name my future historians use to refer to now. I.e. late-stage capitalism. In my future history it plods along for another 90 years or so until it's overthrown by a radically different economics I called the Princeton system. Just as I worked out the operation and consequences of my FTL drive, I also worked out how my economic system pays for it. I'm rather proud of how it works. So proud in fact the I almost ruined a cocktail party by starting to describe it. To avoid catastrophe in the future I'm going to write it all down here. Then if I ever have a desire to pontificate, I can just refer to this URL.

梅林路由器直接全家科学分流上网:2021-7-13 · 我自己比较网件或者华硕的路由器，直接刷好梅林的，直接设置一下小飞机就可众，比较简单粗暴 因为网上很多已经刷好梅林的二手路由器，价格有高有低，本人便宜的也有用过，好的也有用过，看自己实际情况选择

The Princeton system is fundamentally cooperative and generous. This is in direct opposition to capitalism's values of selfishness and greed. These are all part of human nature, of course, but why not have a system that fosters the traits we consider good instead of trying to harness the ones we consider evil?

ssr机场节点是什么？ 免费高速稳定ssr机场推荐订阅-山西 ...:2021-12-14 · ssr机场节点是什么？免费高速稳定ssr机场推荐订阅 本文介绍SSR机场主要是为了学习科研众及外贸工作。请遵守中华人民共和国法律法规，切勿在任何地方发布分裂国家，激化民族矛盾的言论，不欢迎不爱国及极端人士。 SSR机场是什么意思？

So how does it work? The first part of the answer relates to how resources are allocated. As I've said there's no such thing as a post-scarcity society and this is certainly not one. Decisions have to be made about how much of something to produce and who gets to consume it. Money is one way to do that, but it's a terrible system that can generate grotesque outcomes. The answer under the Princeton system is deceptively simple: queuing. People who want a thing stand in a line, and the next one available goes to the person at the head of the line.

Of course we're not talking about physical queues. This is the 22nd century for cripes sake. This is a virtual line managed on a server somewhere. Also there are an infinite number of lines that move at different speeds, but let's start simple.

Let's say you want shoes. Of course you can always get shoes because they're a necessity, but you may not have much choice. If you need shoes today then you'll have to take what's available. Still better then nothing. But if you have time you can shop for shoes you like, and then put yourself into the queue for the next available pair. If there are 100 before you who want the same shoe, then you'll get the 101st one available. And many times it's as simple as that. Many common goods are made using freely available patterns in local workshops or centers. What you're queuing for is essentially time on the fabricator. When your order comes up someone loads it into the next available machine and runs it off. When completed it moves into another queue to be sent you you using the next available transport.

免费SSR:1984-1-11 · 免费SSR,SSR 地址 免费SSR地址分享 ssr链接 IP 端口 密码 加密 协议 混淆 右键复制链接 45.253.65.247 996 jrMqHm0ki aes-256-cfb origin tls1.2_ticket_auth 右键复制链接 s253.okss.top 443 ...

免费SSR机场推荐 SSR机场订阅_重庆seo博客:2021-12-11 · 目前网上有免费分享的ssr基本上都不太稳定，经常连接掉线无法访问网站，而且浏览海外网页都卡，更别说看2K视频了。 一般SSR有几种方法： 1，自己搭建飞机场服务，即购买海外VPS服务器 搭建ssr机场，自己购买的服务器流量都是自己使用，相对来说稳定一些。

Gamma is a very important number, so how it is assigned? That's the subject for the next installment.

One of the most ubiquitous, even seminal, tropes in science fiction is people going to other planets. Turns out this is very difficult, and if the author is of a hard sciencey kind of bent, then they have two questions to grapple with:

1. How did they travel there?
2. How did they pay for the trip?

Many SF writers will engage with the first question. A few stick within the bounds of hard science and work to imagine drives that operate at relativistic speeds with reasonable energy & momentum. Most just imagine a future technology with "atomic", "gravitational" or "quantum" prefixes (depending on epoch) which can fling people to distant stars in causality-violating and energy non-conserving ways. The warp drive in Star Trek doesn't function by warping physical space, for example, it warps narrative space so that stars and planets simply aren't as far apart as they really are.

Linux下搭建v2ray服务器飞机场教程，畅享YouTube 4k体验 ...:2021-12-20 · Linux下搭建v2ray服务器飞机场教程，畅享YouTube 4k体验 懒得勤快 发表于 2021-12-20 10:54:17 | 最后修改于 2021-12-21 23:35:51 科学上网

梅林路由器直接全家科学分流上网:2021-7-13 · 我自己比较网件或者华硕的路由器，直接刷好梅林的，直接设置一下小飞机就可众，比较简单粗暴 因为网上很多已经刷好梅林的二手路由器，价格有高有低，本人便宜的也有用过，好的也有用过，看自己实际情况选择

永久免费ssr机场节点账号分享-每日福利(2021/3/28更新) | 林 ...:2021-3-28 · 每日福利-周末ssr节点不断更，北京时间2021年3月28日8点56分更新SSR节点账号。rc4加密方式只有SSR客户端有，所众要用SSR客户端。禁止使用账号进行BT下载、滥发垃圾邮件、DDOS攻击！这些行为会导致服务器被投诉而被封！请珍惜免费资源。

There's an argument that can be made that once government spending bootstraps enough space activity then commercial opportunities will bloom and we'll be living and working in space. But I don't buy it. I've become convinced that the conquest of space as imagined in science fiction is incompatible with capitalism. As we have well learned, capitalists go where cost are low, and in space everything's expensive.

The only way to answer the second question is to have a non-capitalist entity footing the bill. Here's three examples of answers that I find compelling:

1) War footing. In John Scalzi's Old Man's War the Earth mobilizes a giant fleet of space warships. This is because they are at war, in a galaxy full of warring planets. There's a magic stardrive technology (quantum, I believe), but the really hard question of who foots the bill is simple: the Colonial Defense Force and its massive power to tax. And we know that works! After all Apollo was basically a military effort.

2) ssr飞机场推荐 Gene Roddenberry's vision for the Star Trek future rejects capitalism. Federation citizens do not work to survive; they work to improve themselves or improve the world. They also dedicate their collective industry and manpower to maintaining Starfleet. We don't know how that works because it's never shown. We've seen members of the civilian authority -- ambassadors, chancellors, and secretaries -- but because we see things mostly through the paramilitary lens of Starfleet we have no idea how they get their legitimacy.

One curious aspect of the Federation at least in the old series is that it relies very heavily on resource extraction. Many of the plots are driven by the Federation's insatiable need for dilithium and other minerals. They negotiate for mining rights, they hunt mine monsters, they fight for planets with the Klingons almost to the point of war, all for rocks. Despite not being capitalists their lust for ores is nearly as obscene.

3) Post-scarcity. Ian M. Banks Culture novels feature a high-tech society that has advanced to the point where it's human citizens want for nothing. They live entirely in space, although those that wish to live on a planet-like surface can make their home on an orbital, a spinning megastructure with many times the surface area of the Earth. Money plays no role in their social or political organization and most of the characters are motivated by desire to achieve or simply by the boredom of centuries of immortal luxury and decadence.

It's not really post-scarcity, however, nothing is. It cannot even really be called a human society because the political decisions are all made by a community of super-powerful AIs called Minds. In one book there's a dispute among the residents of an orbital over the use of non-trivial fraction of it's land. One resident wanted to build a massive network of wind-powered gondolas to cover the area, no doubt an artistic inspiration born of boredom. Other residents objected and wanted to keep the region pristine. The decision was made by the orbital's Mind. It spent perhaps one nanosecond considering and then allowed the gondolas to go ahead. There is no recourse or appeal. Citizens are free to move to a different orbital if they're unhappy, but once there they will also have no voice in collective decisions. The humans in The Culture are basically pets in a very nice terrarium.

One attempt at an objective theory of ethics is utilitarianism, where good is defined as leading to greater happiness for all people considered equally. I'm sympathetic to the idea of objective ethics, and see no other way to make sense of progressive moral intuitions. Some complain that ethics must always be subjective, others quibble with the concepts of happiness or wellbeing. The Repugnant Conclusion paradox critiques the idea that we can collectivize the happiness metric at all. What do we mean when we try to add up happiness over a large number of people?

The paradox proceeds in two steps. Start with a population A, where everybody is very happy. Step 1 is to compare them to population B which has the same number of very happy people, plus the same number again of barely happy people. The argument states that B is "no worse" than A because B starts the same as A and adds more people, and despite being barely happy those people are happier alive than non-existent. Step 2 is to compare B to population C which has the same number of people as B but all of them pretty happy. "Pretty happy" is less happy than "very happy" but much happier than "barely happy". Now we conclude that C is better than B because people are on average and in total more happy in C than they are in B. By transitivity we are forced to agree that C is better than A -- that a population where everyone is very happy is worse than one where they are merely pretty happy, only because the latter has more people.

Hopefully it's easy to see that the conclusion is wrong. If it's not obvious yet the argument can be applied again on population C, resulting in a population E that 's more populous and less happy than C, that we also conclude is better. Taken to the limit we have population Omega consisting of nearly infinite population living at the minimum possible happiness, and conclude this is the best possible outcome. That would be horrible -- i.e. the Repugnant Conclusion.

It's fortunately also easy to see where the argument breaks down. Step 2 is quite plausible. A change in society that makes some people less happy but greatly increases the happiness of others is arguably an ethical change. Some will be displeased but overall the society will be better. Step 1 is where the problem lies. Population B is supposedly "no worse" than population A, but no -- it's definitely worse. We can see that it's worse by looking at how people really judge the quality of a population.

Imagine that you needed to emigrate to one of two countries. You know nothing about them except that the population of country A is 1 million, and every one of them is very happy. You also know that the population of B is 2 million, and half of them are very happy and half of them are barely happy. Which country would you pick? Of course you want to pick the country where everyone is happy. It seems likely that if you went there you'd be very happy too, while if you went to country B you might end up being only barely happy. Obviously A is the more appealing outcome. There's something about country B that makes it less likely for its citizens to be happy.

As a second example imagine you work in public health. City A has a population of 100,000 and no one has any chronic health concern. City B has 200,000 people and half of them have some low-level of arsenic in their systems. Which city are you more concerned about? Obviously city B. Despite the fact that both cities have the same number of perfectly healthy people, that does not mean they are the same. There's something in city B that is exposing its citizens to toxins.

We can go the other direction too, and often do. If we split the USA into male and female sub-populations we see that the female population has zero propensity to stockpile military weapons. The male half, however, does have this pathology. Should we be cheered that we're "no worse" than a gunless country half our size? Of course not, that would be silly. And yet that's what this argument hinges on.

So we see that total number of people is almost entirely irrelevant for how we actually evaluate populations as a whole. For measures like happiness, health, and wellbeing the statistics of the population -- the average, the mean, the standard deviation -- are much more meaningful than the sum. Even for measures that can be meaningfully aggregated, like wealth, the statistics of the distribution are still probably more interesting. With this in mind the paradox is easy to solve. Step 1 makes average happiness go way down, and then step 2 brings the average back up but not as high as before. Overall the transformation makes the situation worse overall, so C is worse than A. This is what our intuition tells us, so the paradox -- which was all based on intuition anyway -- is resolved.

Does this help us understand how to make utilitarian ethics work? Only a little. After all, making ethical decisions regarding diverse populations where everyone has human rights and a need for justice is going to take more than averaging a single self-reported number. But it might be a place to start.

Searle's Chinese Room paradox is an attempt to demonstrate that a computer program cannot possess general intelligence. As we've seen with other paradoxes the Chinese Room is a thought experiment that magnifies our misconceptions, in this case about how our own minds work. This one paradox seems to cause quite a bit of mischief so we stand to gain a lot if we unroll it.

The scenario goes like this. Suppose you have a computer program that can hold a conversation in Chinese. It takes Chinese symbols as input and produces replies in the same alphabet. If the conversational back and forth is indistinguishable from how humans might respond in the same situation, we have to conclude at the very least that the computer understands Chinese. Not so, says Searle, and suggests replacing the computer with a room. This room contains a human-readable version of the program, filing cabinets to serve as memory, scratch paper and pencils to act as temporary storage, and a non-Chinese speaking human being to execute the program. The symbols acting as prompt come in through a slot, the human runs the program by hand, and the reply is generated as more Chinese symbols and passed out another slot. Because the human doesn't understand Chinese, Searle argues, and everything else is inanimate and incapable of understanding, this human-powered computer doesn't understand Chinese.

Searle's formal objection is that the computer program is only doing "symbol manipulation." Programs take symbols of some kind, perform operations over them, perhaps combining them with other symbols stored in data banks, and generate new symbols. At no point does the computer assign meaning to those symbols; that's only done by the human who entered the input symbols or interprets the output symbols.

This argument is really spectacularly bad. First of all it's question-begging. Part of the question we're trying to answer is "can a collection of inanimate stuff understand things?" and Searle comes right out and assumes that's false. He also equivocates. By failing to define his use of the term "understand" he conflates the layman's everyday reading with a philosopher's technical jargon.

So what do we mean when we say that someone or something "understands" something we said to them? Understanding means that the information content of the utterance was correctly added to that individual's existing store of information. That requires that we're dealing with something with a mind, but it doesn't have to be human. Minds tend to be opaque things, so we can't observe "understanding" directly. Instead we can only test it by observation and experiment. If you tell your dog to "stay" and she stays, then you have some confirmation that she understood the command. If a student passes the exam then you can be fairly certain that they understood the course material. The exam is a kind of probe of the student's model of the world, allowing us to see if the new information was successfully integrated without having to open up their skulls which we can't do in any case.

Instead of this commonsense and testable definition, Searle insists on the epistemologist's concept that "understanding" relates to how humans assign meaning to symbols. The word "horse" isn't just a collection of letters or a sequence of sounds, it stands in for the English speaker who reads or hears it as a representation of the real animal. This is a philosophical atom of comprehension, both indivisible and unseen. However since he offers no explanation of how this magic is accomplished, nor any empirical test we might apply to non-human minds, it's entirely useless for the question at hand. He can simply assert that human minds can do this while inanimate systems cannot.

The argument also tries to trick us by creating the impression that an intelligent computer program would be a simple thing. A large filing cabinet might hold 100 megabytes, and a well-trained human might perform at 1 operation per second (FLOP) on a good day. And Searle wants us to imagine that this would be sufficient. Of course it's not. This program accomplishes human-like conversational performance. Simple programs that try to do this have all failed. The human brain is estimated to have 10 terabytes of storage and operate at 1 exaFLOP. Even if the program can converse in Chinese using 1% of those resources we'd still need the "room" to be more like an office building containing thousands of filing cabinets, and for the poor human to take 10,000 millennia to compute the one second of real time it takes to read “你好吗?” and reply “我很好”. A later stage of his thought experiment assumes that the human operator can memorize the algorithm and all of the state information and run the program in their head. People can't do long division in their heads, let alone execute massive, data-intensive programs. This isn't just nitpicking either -- it's central to the intuition.

The pivotal issue is that this is again a fallacy of division, where the argument depends on the mistaken idea that a large collection of things can only have properties that are also shared by the individual components. This is why it was important to handle the sand heap problem first, as a much simpler example of the same fallacy. This hypothetical computer program and system state will be ssr节点2022每日更新 complex -- many orders of magnitude beyond what a person can deal with by hand. Yes, each individual operation is a mechanical transform of symbols whose meaning is known only to the programmer, not the computer hardware, but there are 100's of trillions of them. Neurons don't know the meaning of the signals they receive and pass along, and yet put enough of them together and you get us. Given that we don't know how brains work at that level it's the height of hubris to suggest that minds can't emerge from other types of systems of similar depth.

I'm of the opinion that paradoxes are useful for understanding how our understanding of the world differs from how the world actually works. They are a kind of optical illusion but for our reasoning abilities, not our vision. If we can resolve a paradox in our minds then we have deepened our understanding of other issues.

An especially simple one that packs a lot of punch is the sand heap problem or sorites paradox. The argument goes like this: Start with a heap of sand. Now take away one grain. What remains is still a heap because a difference of one grain is immaterial. Now repeat that step over and over until you're left with a single remaining grain of sand. One grain of sand is not a heap, and yet we can't identify any step in the process when the heap went away. So we have a paradox: no step of removing a single grain could destroy the heap, but the heap has been destroyed.

Does that mean a single grain of sand must actually be a heap? Of course not; that's clearly not what we mean by "heap." A heap of sand is a vague object but it has some expected features. We expect the vast majority of the grains of sand in the heap will be supported only by other grains lower in the heap. If we spread the sand out as a single layer on the ground it would no longer be a heap. Likewise we expect the heap to be supported mostly from the bottom. If we pour the sand into a container it's not a heap. Opinions might differ, but mostly I think a heap of sand implies a large volume. A small amount of sand might be more like a "pile" than a "heap." A single grain can have none of those properties.

完全免费SS/SSR节点账号分享强烈推荐 | 贵阳装修高端设计 ...:2021-3-6 · 必须SSR飞机场，外出右拐 1，什么叫SS/SSR SS/SSR是现阶段时兴的科学研究浏览方式，应用多种多样加密方式开展端到端加密，来加密传输数据的一种专用工具，网络速度迅速、更节电，不用持续保持联接，有着更强应用可靠性。

The deep lesson we learn from this paradox is about emergent properties. An emergent property is a feature of a collection of items that is not found in any of the individual items alone. One example is sound. Individual atoms or small collections of them don't carry sound, but sound waves can start to exist when there are huge enough numbers of interacting atoms, such as in a gas. Likewise one neuron isn't intelligent, but clearly intelligence can be found in the right type of collection of many neurons. Emergent properties are continuous and gradual. We're used to thinking about an object's properties as binaries. Bachelor or not. Pregnant or not. In contrast to this intuition, the emergent properties of collections tend to scale in effect relative to the size of the collection. This is reflected in language when we use adjectives to indicate size: a huge sand heap, a complex nervous system, a thick gas.

With this in mind we can easily spot the flaw in the argument. Because "heap-ness" is an emergent property of collections of sand, and therefore something that scales numerically, we can no longer claim that removing one grain leaves the heap exactly the same as before. We have to agree instead that removing one grain of sand leaves slightly less of a heap than was there before. It's fairly obvious that diminishing some property -- however slightly -- over and over could eventually obliterate that property altogether. Because emergent properties are real things, but are a matter of degree, there is no paradox.

A recent fad among intellectuals is pondering whether the world we live in is really just a simulation running on the cloud computers of our distant post-human descendants. Like angels dancing on pinheads the idea boggles the imaginations of stoners and serious thinkers alike. As odd as this sounds there are a surprising number of otherwise smart people who have convinced themselves that it's almost certainly true. Should we take it seriously? Are we living in a simulation?

ssr飞机场推荐

Slightly longer answer: There's every reason to believe in the material universe as science describes it, and zero tangible reason to believe that it's all computations.

For a full answer we have to consider the hypothesis and the many ways it fails to stand up. Formally the argument is three assertions, one of which must be the truth:

1. 最新免费ssr飞机场 - 好看123:2021-4-2 · 2.免费机场ssr动漫台 点击前往 网站介绍：2021年5月30日 - 自用机场推荐给大家: https://url.cn/5AxfIVV 回复 ssr免费试... 普通 什么是ssr飞机场? - 知乎 2-7天前5天前 - 什么是ssr飞机场?关注者5 被浏览185 ... 3.高速稳定v2ray机场+加速器 ssr梯子 付费永久使用
2. Our technologically advanced descendants will have no interest in simulating their ancestors.
3. 好用的ssr飞机场 - 好看123:1 天前 · 好用的ssr飞机场,最新免费ssr飞机场,全网最全ssr公益机场地址,免费ssr节点2021,高速稳定ssr机场推荐,免费ssr飞机场,1元机场ssr,免费公益机场ssr,obfs安卓插件下载,ssr免费订阅地址

【飞机场】_建筑设计_全球精选高清设计大图免费下载-大作:大作从全球建筑设计中为您找到海量飞机场高清设计大图，帮助设计师获得更多飞机场创意灵感，全网更多建筑设计高清图片 ...

This first problem with this argument is that it isn't science. Science is the only valid way we know to determine what's true about the world, and whether the world is a simulation or not is certainly a science question. The way science operates is that we start with an observation of something in the world, make a model that explains that observation, then confirm the model by testing its predictions beyond the original observation. The simulation hypothesis fails as science at both ends -- there's no observation that requires the hypothesis in the first place, and the hypothesis makes no testable predictions. A positive feature of the simulation is that it's indistinguishable from reality, or even if it is different we have no access to anything outside the simulation so there's nothing to compare it to. A hypothesis that cannot be tested is not scientific.

As a philosophical argument it also fails to Occam's Razor. This states that if we have two competing hypotheses that both fit the facts, we should prefer the one with fewer entities or assumptions. The simulation hypothesis doesn't simplify anything. In fact it requires the normal history of the universe, the natural evolution of humans, and the development of human civilization. Without a time and place where billions of humans were living on the real Earth the simulation theory can't work. So it's just taking everything we know about reality and tacking on "but this is a simulation of that". Because we can explain reality perfectly well without needing it to also be a program running on future computers, Occam's Razor begs us to accept the simpler explanation.

Also a dilemma (or in this case trilemma since it has three options) like this often has falsely limited choices. The most famous such argument is C.S. Lewis's trilemma arguing for the divinity of Jesus. He gives us three choices, that Jesus must have been either "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord", and then with Biblical sophistry eliminates the first two so we are supposed to accept "Lord". The problem is those aren't really the only three possibilities. An obvious forth choice that Lewis conveniently ignored is "Fictional". While the prongs of the simulation trilemma seem comprehensive, we have no reason to believe that they are. This is speculating about the far, far future. They might have capabilities or limitations that we simply can't imagine.

As an aside, it's strange that some of the same people who believe in the simulation hypothesis also believe in the 好用的付费ssr. One of the defining aspects of the singularity -- indeed why it has that name -- is that it's impossible for us on this side of history to even imagine what we'd find on the other side. And yet these same people start from "Moore's Law + video games" and conclude that sandbox Earths with procedurally generated populations are nigh inevitable.

Finally, if we ignore all the other problems with the argument and just take it at face value, it still fails. If we accept that those three statements are the only outcomes possible, which is likely to be true? Option 1 might be true; humans could go extinct or there could be good reasons that the kind of simulation imagined is impossible even at a high level of technology. But let's be optimistic. That means the deciding factor between 2 & 3 is whether those future people want to set up simulations. But let's consider what that means. The subjects in the simulation are as intelligent, conscious, and self-aware as we are. They aren't just NPCs in a video game; they're people. Building the simulation means trapping people inside a world where they will suffer and die for historical accuracy, all without their consent. A civilization that would allow this would be monstrously evil, and being optimistic I don't want to imagine our descendants that way. Hopefully the number of ancestor simulations they build will be zero.

SAGAL: This is amazing. Scientists have determined, the data is clear, that patients with some chronic conditions - many in fact - fare better, live longer if they're overweight. They do better with heart disease, pneumonia, cancer and if they're handed a large bunch of balloons, they are far less likely to float away.

ssr节点2022每日更新

SAGAL: Nobody knows how this could be true because all of the things that people do to get fat - you know, lack of exercise, too much fatty foods, too much sugar - all that is still bad for you. But actually being fat is good for you. This phenomenon is called the obesity paradox, which is also what happens when you go back in time and eat your own father.

Peter Sagal, Wait Wait Don't Tell Me

Underneath the dumb fat jokes there's a puzzle that many people consider a serious conundrum. We are told that weight gain is caused by unhealthy behaviors, and therefore we expect people who are overweight to be less healthy and die sooner than their more slender peers. However, as has been known for a long time, the medical evidence doesn't back that up. Individuals ranked as overweight have better medical outcomes, including longer lives, than individuals ranked as having normal weight. We seem to have a situation where individually unhealthy behaviors are leading to an increase in health, which would appear to be a paradox. Especially since individual lifestyle choices is the only model we've been given to manage our own well being.

This paradox is actually classic question-begging. The real question we should be answering is: how is body weight related to heath? Like the study referenced in the story above, we could look at a wide range of disease and health outcomes and see how they correlate with different behaviors and various measures of body type, weight, and shape. The outcome could then be used as a guide to behaviors that would result in better health outcomes, at least in general terms. We have to do that research first, and then define what we mean by "overweight" -- a weight that's higher than is healthy -- as a result of that.

Instead this paradox puts the cart before the horse and assumes the answer. A BMI over 25 is unhealthy, it says, so why aren't these stupid fat people dying already? It turns out that if you actually do the research, BMI is a not a proxy for health at all. In fact it's terrible as a predictor of health outcomes. The intuition is that people who are overweight got that way because of unhealthy behaviors -- not enough exercise, and foods with too much fat and sugar -- and also that people who have normal weight got that way because of the reverse, healthy behaviors. This is a very strong claim with not much evidence. Note that this is not the same as the conventional wisdom that if you eat more or exercise less you'll experience weight gain. That's not generally true either, but it least it has some basis in reality. The converse claim, that you can determine people's behavior and diet by measuring their height and weight is frankly absurd.

Unfortunately the empirical research won't change people's mind. This is really about a morality play, and an ugly one at that. Thin and muscular bodies belong to virtuous people, while fat and flabby bodies are the result of vice and belong to people with poor morals. Moral scolds tell fat people that they must lose weight, or if not to stay out of public spaces. Fat hatred is rife with elliminationist rhetoric so vile that if it was directed at a ethnic group it would be a hate crime. This so-called paradox exists because people want to believe that fat people are to be shunned for their lack of morals and deserve to die sooner.

Paradoxes can be extremely useful. A paradox is something that seems to be both true and not true, something which can simply never happen . If we find a plausible paradox what we've actually discovered is an error in our reasoning: flaws either in our scientific models, or our informal intuition, or our observations of the world. A paradox in a formal argument (such as a mathematical proof) is called a contradiction, or reductio ad absurdum -- "proven to be absurd" -- and is pretty much the end of the line for any thesis unless some error can be found. So paradoxes can teach us important things; I want to look at a few of those cases.

Zeno's most famous paradox tries to show that nothing can ever get anywhere. An object moving from A to B has to first move halfway, then halfway from that point, then halfway again, and so on. Therefore because there are an infinite number of waypoints between A and B it must take forever for anything to traverse them all.

Because we observe things arriving at their destinations all the time we clearly have a paradox. So where is the error? Tuns out this is an error in intuition. Zeno is exploiting the fact that humans take time to consider something. Considering and endless series of things will therefore take forever. But the moving object isn't considering those waypoints, it's just passing through them. Provided that hitting each point takes an amount of time proportional to the distance between the points, the object can hit an infinite number of points in finite time.

There are two ways to think about this that can help bootstrap the intuition so that it makes sense. Both are a little bit mathematical (because the paradox itself is math masked as parable) but I'm going to avoid notation to help make it clear to any reader.

1) Let's say that the object is moving at a speed that will (theoretically) take it from A to B in one minute. Say 60 mph for a distance of one mile, for example (assuming movement is possible at all, of course). The first Zeno step is one half mile and takes 30 seconds. The second Zeno step is 1/4 mile and take 15 seconds, and so on. If we extrapolate we can see that the time it takes to get from A to B will be given by the sum of all the steps so far: 1/2 min + 1/4 min + 1/8 min + 1/16 min, etc., and the time remaining will be the same as the last Zeno step. What we can observe from this is that after a while the remaining time is not actually growing that fast. In fact it's going down by half after each step. By Zeno step 10 there's only 0.06 seconds left in our minute. At Zeno step 39 there's only one nanosecond left. No matter how many steps you take, the total time is less than one minute, and the time remaining gets smaller and smaller. It may not be such a big leap to see that if we keep doing this forever it still ends up taking 1 minute to get from A to B.

2) But can we expect a finite result from what's effectively a sum of an infinite number of terms? If that still seems strange consider the second approach. Let's take that sum from before: 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 ..., and let's call it Z. Will it sum to a finite value? There's an easy way to show that it does. The first Zeno step splits the interval in half; we've taken a step of 1/2 and there's 1/2 remaining. But we're also going to split the remaining 1/2 into Zeno steps: 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16..., etc. So that means the the entire second half can be represented as Z/2. Why's that? It just means that we're taking the terms of Z and dividing by 2. So 1/2 becomes 1/4, 1/4 become 1/8, etc. The total is then 1/2 plus the remainder which is Z/2, but the sum of those two terms is Z itself. By definition, Z equals 1/2 plus Z/2. The only result that fits that relation is that Z is 1. Thus the result of an infinite sum can be finite.

This is actually a very important result. Understanding this paradox gives us a handle on infinities. Infinite mathematical expressions no longer need to frighten us. We know that some of them will evaluate to finite and even well-behaved answers. This key unlocks doors in geometry, calculus, the equations of physics, chemistry, environmental science, even sociology, and political science. Zeno may have been genuinely puzzled, but the solution gives us -- generations later -- a greater insight into how our models actually work when taken to their ultimate limits.

My profile on Thingiverse declares that I'm a "tinkerer". Of the options they had, that one's pretty close to right. I like to build stuff and modify things. As kid I tried to build a robot hand and as an adult I've built several robots. When I was young I had to salvage motors and gearboxes from toys and appliances, while now I can order inexpensive(-ish) mechanical and electronic components designed for hobbyists off the internet. Ahmed Mohamed is also quite familiar with hobby electronics, and the clock he made looks exactly like a hobby electronics project.

A one-off electronics project will typically consist of four things: a microcontroller, input & output devices, a power supply, and a case. That's all clearly present in this design. The central circuit board is some type of microcontroller. This is wired to a 4 digit LED display and another board that's not clearly shown but probably contains a speaker (since the story mentions that the clock "beeped"). Those are the outputs. It's clearly using a transformer for power, but there's a 9 volt battery connection as well for remote operation. The wiring is a mess but that's also typical. These kinds of things are cobbled together with whatever bits of wire one has on one's work bench. Because it's messy you usually put it in a case (called a "ssr节点2022每日更新") to hide all the stuff you don't want to see. But Ahmed didn't want to hide his work -- he wanted to show it off. That was the whole point of the exercise for him. Since he couldn't just carry around a wad of electronics, he mounted it all inside a case he could open.

So to my eye the design all makes sense. It looks like any typical hobbyist electronics project. While it's clearly not a bomb (there's no explosive), part of it indeed looks kind of like a bomb might look. A home-made bomb could look very like any home-made electronics project: microcontroller, power supply, inputs & outputs, one of which would be the trigger for the explosive charge.

However, despite the fact that it looks like part of what a bomb might really look like, the questioning, arrest, and suspension of Ahmed was unjustified and racially motivated. The school officials and police consciously or unconsciously expected that if there was terrorism it would come from middle-eastern looking people. So when a dark-skinned nerd has a project that looks bomb-ish, he gets charged with making a fake bomb to scare people, a charge that's effectively terrorism. There are plenty of white people with sinister intentions and more means to 小飞机场 ssr that could be called terrorist, but aren't.

People may still say that he should have known that people would think his clock was a bomb, and made it look less threatening. Not only is that victim blaming, it completely fails to understand how 14 year-old boys work. There's a reason why it looked to officials like a Hollywood bomb. He didn't just want to make something functional, he wanted to make it look cool. And stuff from Hollywood action movies is cool. A nerd opens his nondescript case and there's some hacked-together electronics and a digital readout ticking over? That's cool. It looks just like the kind of device that 完全免费SS/SSR节点账号分享强烈推荐 | 贵阳装修高端设计 ...:2021-3-6 · 必须SSR飞机场，外出右拐 1，什么叫SS/SSR SS/SSR是现阶段时兴的科学研究浏览方式，应用多种多样加密方式开展端到端加密，来加密传输数据的一种专用工具，网络速度迅速、更节电，不用持续保持联接，有着更强应用可靠性。. What kind of nerd creates his own spy gear? A super cool one.

Ahmed -- it's a good bet -- is a fan of action movies, if only in a small way. Fans of a thing want to create more of that thing in their own lives. It's why fans dress up in costumes, write fan fiction, collect toys and replicas. That's why Ahmed would want his project to look cool in an action-movie way. If you can create something more of what you love, why not?

The problem is that fandom is racist (and sexist). If you're white and male you can find plenty of role models; if you're dark-skinned or female, not so much. Because the media shows us so few dark faces or women we assume people like that aren't fans. At least not true fans. So when we as a culture see a middle-eastern child playing with some electronics we assume it's a bomb and he's a terrorist. When we see a black child playing with a toy gun -- because guns are also cool in action movies -- we assume it's a real gun and he's a gangster. And we put him in jail, or gun him down in cold blood.

The victim-blaming has to stop. Kids must be allowed to be kids, and oddly enough we can contribute just by letting everyone express their fandom, and giving everyone heroes that look like them.

My wife and I watched Avengers 2: Age of Ultron the other afternoon. We went to a 1:30 show on Wednesday afternoon, which we had practically to ourselves, which is definitely the way to go. We enjoyed it quite a bit. I liked it as much as the first Avengers movie, which was unexpected given the reviews. Marvell certainly seems to know how to make a superhero movie.

One thing bugged me enough to send me to the internet to complain, however. The entire final action scene is predicated on a misunderstanding of science so common that it deserves correcting. (Spoilers ahead, by the way.)

Ultron wants to create an artificial extinction by creating an explosion equivalent to a large asteroid impact. So he builds a machine that lifts a several-kilometer chunk of the Earth's crust slowly up into the air and then smashes it back down again. This drives all the third-act drama -- the Ticking Clock, the Last Stand, the Heroic Sacrifice. And that all works, except that the premise is complete nonsense.

As the author of xkcd helpfully explains, space isn't high, it's fast. A near-Earth asteroid hitting the Earth will be going at least escape velocity -- about 30 times the speed of sound -- and sometimes much faster. Just dropping a big rock from 15,000 feet won't get anywhere near that. The only way to simulate the kinds of energies involved would be to put the rock into solar orbit and then make it hit the Earth.

Or we could just make the rock bigger, right? No. The energy of the impact -- and Ultron wants to maximize the energy for maximum damage -- depends only linearly on mass. Double the mass you double the energy. On the other hand energy goes as the square of velocity. Double the velocity and you have four times the energy. Even if you could get the rock going Mach 1 it would still only have 1% of the energy of the same rock at Mach 30.

So Ultron has to accelerate the rock, and there's some indication in the film that the engines lifting to rock switch to pushing the rock down in order to hit the ground at faster than falling speed. Assuming it could go fast enough that could work. But if he could do that there's no reason to bother.

Instead of building a thousand robots to get to The Big Red Button, Ultron could have just built a thousand rocket sleds. Instead of using the engines for lifting, he could just use them to accelerate huge masses along evacuated tubes. The resulting explosion would be at least as energetic as pile-driving a city, and it could all be built underground where the Avengers couldn't get to it.

Is the final caper more ridiculous than an indestructible green man, or a guy flying using jets on his hands powered by - electricity? I guess? - or a magic hammer? No, of course not. But it's an example of how supervillains always have to tie themselves in knots to make it possible for the heroes to be able to thwart them. For once I'd like to see a villainous plot that wasn't so obviously designed to fail.

My daughter turned 16 last week. She invited a huge bunch of friends over to the house and her mother and I hid in the back and tried not to get in their way too much. We made occasional trips into the common areas just to make sure things weren't getting too out of control, but mostly we let them have their space. The boys were a bit too boisterous for our tastes, but mostly they did great.

She has since gotten many text messages about how it was a great party and everyone had a good time. Her high academic scores are nice, but the fact that she can throw a good party is a special point of pride for us as parents.

Let me just say this, however, to anyone out there who reads "16 year-old daughter" and blanches: keep it to yourself. It seems like virtually any man -- if I tell them my child's age -- will express some kind of misguided sympathy. Especially fathers of daughters themselves! Please know that my female child being on the threshold of adulthood doesn't freak me out. Here is an abbreivated list of the things I don't need:

I don't need to buy a shotgun.

战歌竞技场自走棋2.0最新版下载_腾讯战歌竞技场公测官方 ...:2021-12-31 · 战歌竞技场自走棋2.0最新版是一款非常高人气的战斗的类对抗竞技游戏，在游戏中是一个有着超多非常强大的旗手战斗的挑战世界，可众在超多不同的战场之上都找到一次最为传奇的发挥方式，找到不同战场之上的不同作战方式，可众最为直接的应对不同的危机，感受到极限飞升模式。

I don't need to coax my daughter to eat more and become less desireable. (ssr机场网站)

I don't need to push her into more aggressive contact sports.

I don't need to relentlessly monitor her and audit her choices.

What I need to do is make sure I contine to love and support her, and to help her navigate as best I can this transitional period in her life. I am proud; I am not a patriarch.

- jack*

Last chirstmas I got a home 3D printer. It's not only useful for designing useful parts for home improvement projects and my robotics hobby, but it's also fun to just print random objects just to see how they turn out and to have them. I hear 3D printing is now becoming mainstream, and I was slightly before the trend. Lucky me.

全网最全ssr公益机场地址 - 好看123:2021-6-14 · 全网最全ssr公益机场地址,高速稳定ssr机场推荐,ssr节点2021每日更新,免费TG伕理分享,ssr最新订阅地址大全,免费公益机场ssr,2021免费ssr账号每天更新,长期免费更新ssr节点,v2rayng免费节点每天更新,ssrcloud官方网站

So what I did was pick out a few 3D models of ornaments from Thingiverse, the 3D model-sharing website run by Makerbot, one of the major 3D printer companies. These are them: a dodecahedron star, a spiral, and a couple of companion cubes. And for my new-agey sister and her wife I printed a replica of a paleolithic venus figure.

No other commentary. It's all pretty entertaining, and I recommend it.

- jack*

ssr线路购买 免费ssr机场推荐SSR机场订阅 - 连云港文化网:2021-2-17 · 目前网上有免费分享的ssr基本上都不太稳定，经常连接掉线无法访问网站，而且浏览海外网页都卡，更别说看2K视频了。 一般SSR有几种方法： 1，自己搭建飞机场服务，即购买海外VPS服务器 搭建ssr机场，自己购买的服务器流量都是自己使用，相对来说稳定一些。

Dude. Give it up. You really don't know what you're talking about.

Actually she tried to answer the question over and over, but she's just not good at making complex arguments in a confrontive interview format. Ha ha! I joke! Nobody is.

Actually, his age doesn't explain it. As amusing as it might be to make ageist jokes, I'm actually as old as Jon and I get the distinction. Let me try to explain it in a few hundred words.

OK Jon, you know how the ACA works, right? There are three parts. Comunity standards eliminate "preexisting conditions" that everyone agrees are horrible; mandates prevent young healthy people from waiting until they're sick to enroll; subsidies allow even the poor to fulfill the mandate. It's a three-legged stool. Without any part of it the whole thing fails.

Good so far? Two parts are nice, one part is punitive -- the part that requires people to pay for the healthcare they get, whether they buy insurance or go to the emergency room if they have no insurance. People hate to pay for things, especially things that might be for other people. That's why the GOP opposed single-payer, by the way. Please don't attack Ms Sebelious about that, like you did. It wasn't her fault. Can we agree on that?

Anyway, back to our stool. What part of the mandate -- the thing that people don't like -- is most important? Is it the mandate for individuals, or the mandate for large corporations? I don't know for a fact, but I'm going to guess 10:1 that the individual mandate is more important. Without the corporate mandate the thing is working at 90% efficiency; without the individual mandate the thing is dead. If you delay the individual mandate for a year, you're basically asking to delay the ACA for a year.

Actually, it's worse. If you only implement two legs of the stool and leave out the "how to pay for it" leg, you actually make it fail. I'm guessing all things being equal you'd like Obamacare to work, Jon, you're just too dumb to understand that you're not helping.

- jack*

Apparently an untended blog grows weeds. TypePad's awful software can't filter out even the most obvious spam, so my fallow comment areas have been getting hit with dozens of bogus comments daily. I've been deleting them and closing comments on older posts, but I'm pretty heavy handed. On one particularly bad day I deleted several old comments by valid human readers, so I apologize for that. There's no way to get them back as far as I know.

So if a comment of yours goes missing, know that it was an accident and you should re-post it. Also, don't call yourself "cheap louboutin shoes".

While weeding I came across this 2005 post that I forgot about, wherein I lay out Sam Harris' case better in a few hundred words than he did in an entire book published 5 years later. It's ever been an important and interesting topic, and I hope to get back to it.