It is really quite staggering how many commenters here seem to believe that the fact that there is no state carried from one chat session to the next proves that there can't be consciousness. It is obviously wrong if you think about it for a minute but I guess people just aren't used to thinking about the relation between the physical and the mental with any level of seriousness.
The whole world is drowning in ads, and people have by and large done nothing about it. Revealed preference is that the vast majority of people support ads.
Revealed preference tells you which of the given options people prefer over the others made available, not which they support. Sometimes that's the same thing, sometimes it's not.
I've known people in abusive relationships who would tell you they're happy. We can't pretend like conditioning or manufactured consent aren't a thing.
I would like to know especially what is the perceived difference between normal imagination and hallucination. The way people with mental visualization explain it it sounds basically exactly what I always imagined hallucinations to be like. And e.g. closed-eye visuals on psychedelics. Why is it so special to have closed-eye visuals when most people have closed-eye visuals anyway?
The difference is when you imagine things normally you are aware that you are imagining them and you have full control over them. I can picture an elephant in the room with me, I can change its size or color, I can give it a top hat, and critically I can make it go away at will. If you're hallucinating, it's just there, however it happens to be, and while you might be able to reason that it's more likely a hallucination than reality, that doesn't make it feel any less real, nor give you control over it.
Crazy that this is about to be normalized. Can't help but think the discourse of "they already record everything anyway" of the past couple years (even in the absence of complete proof) has played a part.
Never thought it would be Apple to normalize it either. I’ve been in the ecosystem because they have a proven track record of privacy and security and taking principled stands.
I’m sure the NSA is salivating at this and I don’t trust the current administration not to legislate back doors.
Terrible misstep from Apple from my perspective. This is their “they removed Don’t Be Evil from the website” moment for me.
There's been plenty of evidence that nothing is recorded or sent back, hardly "absence of complete proof". People have identified basically everything coming from the network stack of an iPhone.
This is already normalized in most modern office buildings. There are video and audio recording devices in virtually all common areas. This started a bit after private offices were done away with.
>There's been plenty of evidence that nothing is recorded or sent back, hardly "absence of complete proof".
You may have a different understanding of the word "complete" than the standard definition.
Unless you are claiming the verifiers kept the watches being tested under constant survellance for several years, the proof you are alluding to may only prove that it is not routinely sending or recording data. It does not prove they can't turn it on whenever they feel like it, or when obeying a time-limited and geofenced mass surveillance order.
I mean, anything with a microphone or camera (and some things without) can theoretically be used to listen to/record you at any given time for a myriad of reasons.
If you are worried about such a device being on your person, I think the easy solution is just not to wear or buy one.
In theory any device with a microphone and an internet connection can record everything and send it off to some remote server, but in practice there was really no evidence of this happening on any significant scale for a long time. It is easy to see how this would make a difference for most people. But already there was an attitude among some people of "we all carry a microphone in our pocket, there is no privacy anymore".
Then voice-activated devices came out which (without making a secret of it) started recording after detecting some watchword, of course there were false positives but most normal people didn't really seem to care about that. Again this was used by the most paranoid or anti-technology people as an argument that "see, they're really recording everything like we've been saying all along".
Now a device comes out which explicitly and openly records everything within reach and applies AI analysis to it, and the precise people who should be most against it act like it's no big deal because supposedly this was already happening anyway - while, on the contrary, I think this is precisely the moment where the line is being crossed in a way that will have actual negative consequences on society, and this is the time to take a stand against it.
So ironically we see that the hyper-activistic all-or-nothing attitude is actually working against the very interests that its proponents claim to want to protect.
Even if it is, the software on the device could theoretically do whatever it wants with the data before it's encrypted/uploaded, and if it's sent to Apple, they could do whatever they want with it too.
"The most obvious differences between different animals are differences of size, but for some reason the zoologists have paid singularly little attention to them. In a large textbook of zoology before me I find no indication that the eagle is larger than the sparrow, or the hippopotamus bigger than the hare, though some grudging admissions are made in the case of the mouse and the whale."
You could say e.g. Spinoza was a punk avant-la-lettre, he was a punk before the word "punk" even existed. I think GP is using it exactly opposite to the normal usage.
>another analogous musing -- why did we start with main+tail rotor helicopters?
In fact we started with autogyros.
Also the Fw 61 ("the first successful, practical, and fully controllable helicopter" though I don't know the history in detail) has two equal-size counter-rotating rotors similar to a quadcopter.
Yes, contrary to popular belief, even I am affected by context and change what I converse about as the discussions topic and context drift, this is called having a conversation.
I'll stand by that I think most Arch Linux users, extrapolated from the people I know also run it, review at least the domain/GitHub organization for random AUR packages, and all of them are aware of what the AUR actually is, and is for.
I don't think most people here on HN who are clearly misunderstanding what the AUR is, are actually Arch users, or if they are, they haven't read the header that been visible since forever on the AUR.
reply