You’re missing the initial step.

1. Assume that these proposals are correct.
2. Given the proposals are correct, all of them contain a common structure.
3. Given the common structure…

Both OP commenter and myself take umbrage with #1 (if I can speak for them; they make disagree with me). I assume that if we trace the sources for the letter that we’ll see the reasons we’re able to make all of these logical leaps using other results in the field that come out of these proposals. I also assume that, if one of these systems is the foundation for a fully consistent theory of quantum gravity, then its conclusions are valid. This paper doesn’t address that initial assumption though so things like the article summarizing it are begging the question.

There are many situations where we just have to agree to assume. If you read 14 and 36, you’ll find some of the core assumptions that go into this letter (both interesting ideas and the same authors so you can understand why they’d continue). An assumption Faisal makes is the rejection of objective observability which is one of those things you either believe or don’t believe. It’s analogous to the axiom of choice in that it could be contested but could be generally accepted.

Actually, F_QG is itself an assumption which isn’t backed up. See the paragraph before the one you quote when defining it. The beauty of axioms is that we can assume whatever we want but we need to either show nothing goes underneath it (eg Peano axioms) or have a very compelling case to make them (eg non-Euclidean geometry like parallel lines meet at infinity). This is a metasumary of some similar research at best. It’s not a proof in the way you think it is. Just because you don’t understand what you’re responding to doesn’t mean you’re right.

Yeah, the opening of the second paragraph on the page marked twelve basically says “we don’t have a true theory so we look at some proposals.” If anything, all it’s shown is that these specific proposals fall prey to the normal inability of mathematical systems to fully describe themselves, not that quantum gravity actively disproves a simulation. Everything after that might be sound if we trace all the sources. Nothing stood out as implausible or anything beyond some logical leaping. There was nothing that showed adding more to the system won’t fix the issues, which is the whole point of things like the updates their choice of set theory added to ZFC.

You’re saying the same thing as the top of the thread. All of this is for now. At some point it could be advantageous for Apple to stop resisting US demands. It is important to understand and prepare for that while also accepting, for now, Apple provides the most corporate privacy of the corporate privacy options in the US.

The Joker is a bad imitation of King of Comedy (and Joker 2 is contained in the King of Comedy credits). I wouldn’t be surprised if it ripped off other movies; skimming summaries for Perfect Blue it doesn’t seem terribly similar beyond some themes. This thread has piqued my interest in Perfect Blue which sounds pretty rad.

Pete Hines didn’t fucking properly value developers. I don’t buy this shit at fucking all. Mandatory crunch, shitty benefits, and terrible consumer practices were par for the course during his whole tenure. Since I don’t see him out on the union front donating all his fucking blood money this is just a different way of saying “Pete Hines and other executives aren’t making enough money off residuals from a subscription model.” Bethesda (and ZeniMax) was a shitty place to work that conned devs into getting fucked because Bethesda. He can fuck right off with this shit.

Devs haven’t been properly valued in decades and subscription models are nothing new.

Note that the linked article answers your FOSS question.

Don’t forget the ability of major actors to rewrite history, making these blockchains incredibly centralized and absolutely mutable. If someone with enough clout decides to roll something back, it happens.

The current thread is about AI slop, not DMS. You helped create the branch we’re on. You said “people on Lemmy can’t tell slop from useful info.” I said “this is AI slop because the sources don’t match,” assuming that I wouldn’t have to explain the hallucinations (fabrications is a bit better here) because that usually comes with slop. Since the current thread is about whether or not slop is meaningful, I have no idea what you added by saying “hey I attacked someone for not liking AI then attacked someone else for a refutation of the AI that I was white knighting.”

Given the sources don’t really back up the content, I think it’s safe to say this is slop. You should probably proof AI slop before you white knight it next time.

Can you help me understand which political petitions meant to document real constituent desires don’t require doxxing yourself? I don’t believe I’ve ever participated in any citizens initiative that didn’t require personal information.

I don’t follow this argument. In this context, proprietary code is work product that has value to its owner. Often large swathes of said work product is reused across games so the theory is that releasing the work product means your competitors can make your work product. I do not understand how wrapping someone else’s work product in your own work product doesn’t require them to first release their work product.

Note I don’t necessarily buy the company mindset on proprietary code; I explained here because I don’t understand where you’re coming from.

This isn’t recent. This has been an ongoing thing for at least 20 years (if not longer; that’s just the earliest I remember having this convo). Yes, it cleans the wound by killing things but it also fucks up the healthy tissue around the wound (see other comments for a more scientific explanation). Having some in a medical kit is useful for other activities such as diluting with water for an ear rinse, diluting with water for various mouth stuff (rinse not swallow), and some skin treatments (again, diluting first).

California is not Colorado nor is it federal. I don’t think you understand the things you’re saying since you don’t seem to grasp, as you put it, the regulations are “often state-specific.” You linked California, not Colorado, which this article is in reference to. Even in the beginning, you didn’t seem to grasp why regulation and some level of understanding about what people should or shouldn’t do is reasonable to have defined. Good luck!

In the US? I’m gonna need to see some statutes there bud. Last I checked there are no federal requirements and as far as I can tell there are only insurance requirements in Colorado at the moment.

1. What about ride share companies that aren’t Uber or Lyft that don’t have safety programs?
2. What requirement do Uber or Lyft have to maintain good safety after, say, they own the market?

I must be pulling a red herring then

A point I haven’t seen yet is just general eugenics. I know OP says “no appearance or mind” but genetic diseases directly affect those. Take deafness, for example. It can be genetic and therefore could be “fixed.” The deaf community would be fucking furious (cochlear implants can be incredibly controversial). Blindness can also be genetic. Cleft lips and club feet can be genetic (or influenced by) and they can be really gnarly so why wouldn’t we fix those? And since we’re fixing things, why not fix autism and Down’s syndrome (I know we said no mind but those are truly game changers!) and oh shit now we’re in Gattaca. Eugenics is bad. I won’t fully commit to a slippery slope because that’s a fallacy; I will say very convincing science fiction has been written about this and I have seen nothing under capitalism (or communism!) that convinces me that wouldn’t happen.

See‽ Easy explanation. I get it, absolutely reasonable issues, and one of several areas Linux just isn’t great with. “Too many issues to explain here” doesn’t click with me.

This rings a little hollow to me. Most of the people I know that understand Linux can quickly summarize why they might not use it as their daily driver (eg staying on macOS for graphics/video or staying on Windows for desktop Word/Excel). If you can’t summarize that quickly, it really makes me wonder if you really understand it. I’m not trying to No True Scotsman my way around it; I really don’t understand.