dev_null @ dev_null @lemmy.ml

Posts

0

Comments

690

Joined

2 yr. ago

I used a fake name on Facebook and one day I similarly got suspended asking for government ID. So I photoshopped some fake ID with the fake name, printed it, put it in a plastic sleeve and took a photo of that, and they accepted it.

The $300/year annual fees would be for a life insurance policy that already covers the main fee. There isn't a 200k to pay in that case.

If anyone is actually interested in learning how this works, this is a great blog post, from an author convinced like many that it's a stupid thing for the rich, until... Well have a read: https://waitbutwhy.com/2016/03/cryonics.html

This is true, which is why preservation does not involve freezing, except for the bad attempts in the 70s the article talks about, which could never work. The bodies are vitrified, not frozen.

Which still doesn't mean it will work, the technology to revive them doesn't exist, but it doesn't have any freezing issue.

But why the fuck would future humans bother bringing all these people back, even if they could?

There are many valid issues to raise with this bring unlikely to work, but this point seems silly. Why would a road maintenance worker fix a pothole, he's not from around and will never benefit from it? Because it's his job he's paid to do, and he's not having a philosophical discussion about it. Whatever future lab technician will be just going to work in the morning as well, paid by their company, funded by the money the preserved people paid. There isn't much to it.

But it's interesting you said that future humans would kill these people because the preserved people are useless assholes. I'm not that sure you labeled the assholes right in your scenario. Your future humans seem ageist and elitist, thinking only they deserve to live.

There is at least one example I remember from the news of a 20-something girl with cancer being preserved, paid for by pooling money from the family and donations. Unlikely to work but she would have died anyway. So what did she do wrong that she doesn't deserve to be woken up, in your future where the technology is there?

There is definitely a case for having a separate device for something a smartphone can do, if it can do it better, e.g a camera.

This device doesn't do it better in my opinion.

The "joke" was that TikTok is ran by the Chinese government.

Laws should be written generally to apply to many situations.

Yeah, so when they don't, it would be a good thing to update them, no? Especially when it looks like new things in the world are going to skirt around them?

For instance emission laws already cover new technology because they simply regulate what comes out of the tailpipe rather than how it is created.

If your hypothetical country has laws that define what comes out of the tailpipe, and my hypothetical new engine generates emissions in the form of solid dust that accumulates in a container, then how is preemptively updating the law so that the container cannot be emptied onto the road as you drive a bad thing, as opposed to creating that law after the fact, in response to people getting poisoned?

Creating niche specific laws is fraught with problems because when new laws are custom tailored to specific situations the chances of negative externalities begin to skyrocket.

Yes. That's why when niche specific laws don't cover new technology, they should be updated to be more general, so that they also apply to the new situation. For example if my hypothetical country has meat storage safety laws, that define meat as coming from a dead animal, then how is making them more general so that they also apply to lab-grown meat a bad thing?

The concept of writing preemptive laws is much like the concept of preemptive crime prevention.

Yes, what's wrong with it? I put a lock on my front door as preemptive crime prevention. Do you only put a lock on your front door after some opportunist already stole something?

It is definitely a situation of putting the cart before the horse. The kind of situation where special interests are pulling the strings to write a bad law. For instance the law in Florida banning artificial meat is an example of a preemptive and poorly devised one. First the product has not even reached the market place. Second this laws bans it rather than just requiring proper labeling. It is not based on facts and likely is unnecessary and merely a partisan act to gather goodwill from entrenched industries.

You are bringing up an example of a bad law to suggest preemptive laws are bad. Tell me, would you agree with this law if it was made after artificial meat was already established in the market? If not, then it seems being preemptive is not the problem here, but all the other problems you yourself mentioned.

Please explain when creating a law for something that does not exist yet could be a good thing?

Sure, here are a few examples I can think of:

• A new type of fuel for cars is being worked on. It works by a chemical reaction that isn't combustion. The law is updated to make sure it has to adhere to emission requirements, as currently this is only required for combustion products. Doing it before the new cars exist and are on the road is a good thing.
• Some space exploration companies announce their asteroid mining plans. The law is updated to define how ownership and mining rights of asteroids work. This prevents legal issues before they happen.
• A new battery technology is being worked on. The law is updated to regulate the disposal of them, as this is currently only defined for existing battery types.
• Lab-grown meat is being worked on. The law is updated to make sure it's considered meat so that meat storage and refrigeration safety requirements apply to it, as otherwise stores could argue they don't.

This sounds like a perversion of how law should work. Opinions and ideology should not be dictating policy. It should be based on evidence and produce the desired results while limiting negative externalities.

Absolutely

Sony required the PSN account, which Arrowhead didn't enforce. Clearly they didn't want it either. Until Sony forced them to enforce it. Arrowheads mistake was not enforcing it the entire time. They tried to be the good guys by ignoring the Sony requirement and when this was no longer possible ended up with an apparent bait and switch. If they just listened to Sony and required it the entire time, they wouldn't get into this situation.

So yes, they should give refunds.

What should they do in your opinion? Remember this is a Sony decision Arrowhead have no power over.

You brought up advantages of it being a device, which I don't disagree with. Nothing you said explained the "allow deep integration with AI". That's the only part I was questioning.

What a stupid headline. Isn't law not keeping up with technology a common issue? And so creating legislation around something before it becomes commercially available a good thing?

Of course this law is stupid and shouldn't exist, but "creating a law for something that doesn't exist yet" is not a negative in itself, like the headline tries to imply.

It lets you have analytics in your game (how many players do X, use y feature), without the backlash of analytics.

What would prevent an Android app from having "deep integration with AI"? If the AI is in the cloud then it's all done through normal web requests, which don't even require a permission, let alone so special allowance from Google.

Someone who wants to have Google on their CV when they leave in 2 years. Generally works out.

As in, you can type in the password but when you submit it, the login page says it’s the wrong password? Or as in you can’t get the password box to accept focus? Or as in when it has focus and you press a key, it doesn’t add dots to the box indicating you’ve typed in a character?

Not accepting password can mean any of this, or something else. You said what you did to fix it but you didn't say what was the actual problem you had.

It's a shame you ignored the questions you were replying you. It could help someone see if they have the same problem to know if they should try your solution.

Because the URL is lying, and the image is not a jpg.

I like it, it's much smaller than PNG and JPG for the same quality. I save all my images as webp.