Join an organization. For example every city has Toastmasters, most have several. Easy to find, and it is an excellent place to meet people. And you'll learn how to convert social anxiety into social adrenaline.
Do you have a faith? Actually go to church instead of just believing. Are you non-religious? Several strands of Buddhism can be followed as philosophy and practice without adopting any mystical beliefs. Vipassanā (also called Insight) and Zen are a couple of examples.
And how do you turn random people that you met into life-long friends? You can reduce the time investment by a lot. If you call someone on a spaced repetition schedule, you can make them internalize that the door is always open. Without requiring a large commitment on either side. And a spaced repetition schedule is easy to achieve - just think Fibonacci. I'll call you back in 3 days. Then 5. Then 8 (round down to a week). And so on. It feels like a lot of calls at the start. But it slows down fast. Over a lifetime, it is only around 20 calls.
Play around with it. If it was someone you met and hung out with on a cruise, maybe start at a week for that first call. Either way, you're reinforcing the idea that we like to talk, and the door is always open.
You can use a similar idea to keep people who move on from your workplace in your life. People always mean to stay in contact. Then don't. But with structured reinforcement, you can actually make it work.
A spaced repetition schedule for speedrunning the friend-making process?
If it works, it works, I guess. And in a thread about loneliness, that’s all that matters. But it seems a bit calculated rather than organic, which is what we think of as the platonic ideal of friendmaking.
Think of it as an intentional way to turn a spark of connection into long-lasting coals. It can't work without that initial desire on both sides to make it work.
UBI is not in contradiction to paid work to make more than the minimum that is guaranteed. Think of it as being like food stamps that you get in addition to whatever you do or do not make.
Interestingly, UBI would be compatible with ending the minimum wage. If survival is guaranteed, then there is no reason to insist that a low end job pay a living wage. As long as someone wants to pay for the work and someone else wants to do it, let them!
To be fair, though, some moral frameworks (not mine) proscribe that any killing is bad, even to save oneself or others.
I don't mean this as a "gotcha", but as a reminder that morality is a human invention, and different humans will take different moral stances on things.
Either we have to say that the position does not dictate the possible moves, or that this does not fully capture the position. The problem here is that drawing can become an option or a requirement based on information that this representation doesn't capture.
First the simpler version of this problem. After 50 full moves without a capture or pawn move, a draw MAY be claimed. After 75 moves, a draw MUST be claimed. This requires a count to be kept that may require up to 7 more bits.
The bigger problem is draw by repetition. If a position repeats exactly (same castling and en passant options) for a third time, then a draw MAY be claimed. If it repeats exactly for a fifth time, then a draw MUST be claimed. (Usually it is claimed on the third time, but you don't have to.) Applying this rule correctly requires not just knowing the current position, but what positions have occurred previously, and how often. Back to the last pawn move, capture, or change in potential castling status. This may require (per the first rule) knowing what up to 75 different past positions were.
The best way to store this history is almost certainly not as a list of positions, but as a history of moves. But, even if done efficiently, we will need more bytes for that history than we needed for the position.
> Either we have to say that the position does not dictate the possible moves, or that this does not fully capture the position.
It does not fully capture the history needed for determining future claims of draw by repetition. But by definition, the position fully captures the position.
The notion of position used by the FEN notation [1] includes the board diagram, side to move, castling rights, en-passant options, as well as the number of halfmoves since the last capture or pawn advance, and the total number of moves.
The last one or last two are often ignored in everyday notions of position.
Both examples you have provided are not exactly pertaining to chess POSITION, but rather technicalities to put an upper bound on the time a game may take. Yes, there are rules like 75-move rules, or three-fold repetition, but they have no material bearing on the pieces. On the other hand, FEN does capture information like whether you're eligible for castling, which does make a difference in terms of chess position.
For those who don't get this comment, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle applies to any two quantities that are connected in QM via a Fourier transform. Such as position and momentum, or time and energy. It is really a mathematical theorem that there is a lower bound on the variance of a function times the variance of its Fourier transform.
That lower bound is the uncertainty principle, and that lower bound is hit by normal distributions.
I feel the same holds for the 2nd thermodynamic law. It's mathematically imposed that the most probable event will happen eventually, so a tautology. It's not that some gas or molecules cannot be reverted to a previous situation.
Yes that’s fair to say. The tradeoff is mathematically inevitable. Physics just dictates the constants.
It’s also the kind of thinking that can throw a wet blanket on the “beauty” of e.g. Eulers identity (not being critical, I genuinely appreciate the replies I got)
thank you for that reminder/clarification. I forget sometimes how much we think we have clear pictures of how things like that work when really we're just listening to someone trying to explain what the math is doing and we're adding in detail.
In 2010, due to the China hacking thing, Google locked down its network a lot.
At least one production service went down because it relied on a job running on Jeff Dean's personal computer that no longer had access. Unfortunately I forget what job it was.
That is a misunderstanding. The stated and actual purposes of the UN are different. The actual purpose was to give great powers a place to negotiate with each other, so that we wouldn't get a third world war.
That is why the 5 most powerful countries were permanently put on the security council with complete veto powers.
There was a brief period, from the fall of the Soviet Union to Bush's invasion of Iraq, where "rules-based international order" was not a joke, and in fact was taken pretty seriously by quite a lot of people.
Democracy, free trade, free speech and freedom of religion had "won" over the soviet union. International treaties were reducing stockpiles of nuclear and chemical weapons. The WTO had just started resolving trade disputes through negotiation rather than trade wars. International peacekeeping forces were preventing ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo, even though there wasn't anything like oil motivating the peacekeeping forces. Planners of the genocides in Yugoslavia and Rwanda were being prosecuted by an international war crimes tribunal.
Then-UK-Prime-Minister Tony Blair believed in this stuff pretty earnestly - in fact he wanted to get a UN resolution authorising the Iraq invasion so badly he was happy to submit fabricated WMD evidence to get it.
Of course, even at the height of the "rules-based international order" there were always some stark inconsistencies - especially in the middle east, for example.
You imagine wrong. It was a point that I first remember seeing from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Dyer. Who is not from the US, but is an expert on the subject.
It was in his documentary series War, but I don't remember which episode.
I agree with that belief, and I've been saying it for over 20 years.
I base it on comparing how the IPv2 to IPv4 rollout went, versus the IPv4 to IPv6 rollout. The fact that it was incredibly obvious how to route IPv2 over IPv4 made it a no-brainer for the core Internet to be upgraded to IPv4.
By contrast it took over a decade for IPv6 folks to accept that IPv6 was never going to rule the world unless you can route IPv4 over it. Then we got DS-Lite. Which, because IPv6 wasn't designed to do that, adds a tremendous amount of complexity.
Will we eventually get to an IPv6 only future? We have to. There is no alternative. But the route is going to be far more painful than it would have been if backwards compatibility was part of the original design.
Of course the flip side is that some day we don't need IPv4 backwards compatibility. But that's still decades from now. How many on the original IPv6 will even still be alive to see it?
The IPv2 to IPv4 migration involved sysadmins at less than 50 institutions (primarily universities and research labs), updating things they considered to be a research project, that didn’t have specialised network hardware that knew anything about IP, and any networked software was primarily written either by the sysadmins themselves or people that one of them could walk down the corridor to the office of. Oh, and several months of downtime if someone was too busy to update right now was culturally acceptable. It’s not remotely the same environment as existed at the time of IPv6 being designed
Current statistics are that a bit over 70% of websites are IPv4 only. A bit under 30% allow IPv6. IPv6 only websites are a rounding error.
Therefore if I'm on an IPv6 phone, odds are very good that my traffic winds up going over IPv4 internet at some point.
We're 30 years into the transition. We are still decades away from it being viable for servers to run IPv6 first. You pretty much have to do IPv4 on a server. IPv6 is an afterthought.
> We are still decades away from it being viable for servers to run IPv6 first.
Just put Cloudflare in front of it. You don’t need to use IPv4 on servers AT ALL. Only on the edge. You can easily run IPv6-only internally. It’s definitely not an afterthought for any new deployments. In fact there’s even a US gov’t mandate to go IPv6-first.
It’s the eyeballs that need IPv4. It’s a complete non-issue for servers.
Listen, you can be assured that the geek in me wants to master IPv6 and run it on my home network and feel clever because I figured it out, but there's another side of me that wants my networking stuff to just work!
If you don’t want to put Cloudflare in front of it, you can dual-stack the edge and run your own NAT46 gateway, while still keeping the internal network v6 only.
You have a point. But you still need DNS to an IPv4 address. And the fact that about 70% of websites are IPv4 only means that if you're setting up a new website, odds are good that you won't do IPv6 in the first pass.
Cloudflare proxy automatically creates A and AAAA records. And you can’t even disable AAAA ones, except in the Enterprise plan. So if you use Cloudflare, your website simply is going to be accessible over both protocols, irrespective of the one you actually choose. Unless you’re on Enterprise and go out of your way to disable it.
No, it can be both the government, and the people.
The government for all of the reasons you say.
The people because they have fallen for and accepted propaganda. Thereby leading them to support the government and its toxic narratives.
I base this opinion mostly on seeing how Russian propaganda has poisoned my mother-in-law's mind. Many media reports and various other sources have verified that she is not an isolated example, most Russians accept the same propaganda narratives.
There's plenty of propaganda on our side as well. Let's, for the sake of argument, say that the west was orchestrating regime change in Ukraine with the end goal of regime change in Russia, knowing it would lead to war. We would never know about it. The organizations in the west that handle geopolitical issues are not that different from those of Russia. They're not transparent or democratic, yet we rely on them for our information. They can probably steer us the way they want as easily as they do in Russia. The free media does not have access to the information it would need to truly inform the public.
> Let's, for the sake of argument, say that the west was orchestrating regime change in Ukraine with the end goal of regime change in Russia, knowing it would lead to war.
OK, let's play this game. The logical fallacy here is the relationship between regime change in Ukraine and Russia. These are two distinct countries. It's like saying someone wanted to influence the outcome of the election in the USA to cause regime change in Canada. (I use this example because we know Russians were influencing the elections in the USA.)
A simply more unsettling conclusion from this narrative is that if there is a causal link indeed, and Ukraine taking a pro-EU direction can cause a regime change in Russia, it means that the basis of the latter is very weak - so weak it has to start the war to prevent its fall.
> The logical fallacy here is the relationship between regime change in Ukraine and Russia. These are two distinct countries. It's like saying someone wanted to influence the outcome of the election in the USA to cause regime change in Canada.
Would the US not be forced to react in some way if a pro-china party took over in Canada with the help of chinese influence? And China had the goal of integrating Canada into its military alliance?
This in no way excuses anything currently going on, but I think you are missing the forest for the trees and flying off the handle without engaging with a valid point of discussion because it wasn't a perfect example.
One can condemn the invasion while also considering what would happen if a US neighbor cozied up with its geopolitical rivals. How about the Soviet Union/Cuba? How did the US react to that?
We all know how they reacted, so there is no need for hypotheticals that serve no purpose. And in the last 9 months the US has made multiple strong suggestions that they think that Canada should 'join' the US (by hook, crook, or force) and they've threatened to annex Greenland (similarly) and are currently in the process of setting up a military offensive against Venezuela.
We don't need fairytales, we have history and present day events to guide us.
Okay, but then what point are you attempting to make? You are arguing against the comparison, but then go on to describe other aggressive acts instead. As though to seethe, "it's not an apple, it's a fruit!"
> Would the US not be forced to react in some way if a pro-china party took over in Canada with the help of chinese influence?
This sets you up for saying 'no'
> And China had the goal of integrating Canada into its military alliance?
And this denies Canada the right to engage into treaties.
Neither of which has any bearing on the topic and on actual reality, there is no 'pro china' party in Canada and even if there was the US would not be 'forced to react'. It probably would react but it would not be forced to do so.
So this all just muddies the water by 'just asking questions'. We should stick to reality rather than engaging in positioning strawmen for the express purpose of taking them down, we have an actual war going on right now with a belligerent that is committing warc rimes by the hundreds on a daily basis and which was started on the pretext of another sovereign nation being a threat when that clearly wasn't the case.
That is the topic (see title). Besides that, the hypothetical does not stand even in principle because the US has been the aggressor in very recent history.
So I'm not just arguing against the comparison, I'm questioning the value of making such comparisons in principle because they are just attempts at sowing discord without any basis in fact. If you see it differently then you're welcome that.
I think there is value in treating other actors with some semblance of rationality and using that to gain insight into how one might deal with them, rather than considering them fully sui generis.
For example it would be a similar mistake to think that the recent swing in US politics is a uniquely American phenomenon to which one's own population is inherently immune.
If instead one thinks, maybe we're not so different after all, perhaps one may better understand how better to deal with it.
Especially if the alternatives are, "we just need to get rid of the bad people" or "I guess there's no hope for a better world"
> For example it would be a similar mistake to think that the recent swing in US politics is a uniquely American phenomenon to which one's own population is inherently immune.
Indeed it would be and I'm under no such illusion, rather the opposite. Unfortunately as much as I do it will never be enough. But I'm putting as much time, money and effort into that as my means and energy levels allow.
> If instead one thinks, maybe we're not so different after all, perhaps one may better understand how better to deal with it.
Oh, but we are different, on an individual level. It's as soon as you start talking about 'China' or the 'USA' as homogenous entities with plans and responses (rational or otherwise) that the trouble starts. Before you know it you've defined an in-group and an out-group and that is precisely when rationality gets thrown out.
> Especially if the alternatives are, "we just need to get rid of the bad people" or "I guess there's no hope for a better world"
I don't think we can get rid of bad people, but what we can do is identify them and keep them from the levers of power. The fact that the world over we keep finding megalomaniacs in these positions even though we full well know what it leads to is something that we will have to deal with sooner or later.
And as for hope for a better world, I think that that hope should be rooted in really learning our lessons from the past rather than insisting on re-learning them every couple of generations.
"The West" is not a unified entity, and the interests of Western countries almost never align.
Remember how mainstream media was reporting in 2003 that Powell is obviously lying? How the whole debacle about Iraqi WMDs was little more than a thinly veiled excuse to finish the war Bush Sr had started? Maybe that didn't happen in your country, but it was the reality in many Western countries.
Consider the business as usual in the EU. Whatever the EU is trying to do, there are always some countries that oppose it. Then there are negotiations, and some kind of compromise is ultimately reached, but nobody is truly happy about it. That's what decentralization does to you.
Or maybe consider Russia just before the invasion of Ukraine. Some countries and factions in the West considered Russia an important trading partners, while others saw it as an adversary and wanted to cut ties with it. There was no unified Western policy on anything related to Russia.
You're missing my point. I'm not saying the west did anything wrong. I'm saying that if it did do those things, nothing would be different, and therefore we are just as much pawns of our leaders as the russians are.
People living in Ukraine now clearly don't like that Zelenskiy cancelled the elections and don't want to sign peace agreement. Why they don't go to the streets and protest?
Join an organization. For example every city has Toastmasters, most have several. Easy to find, and it is an excellent place to meet people. And you'll learn how to convert social anxiety into social adrenaline.
Do you have a faith? Actually go to church instead of just believing. Are you non-religious? Several strands of Buddhism can be followed as philosophy and practice without adopting any mystical beliefs. Vipassanā (also called Insight) and Zen are a couple of examples.
And how do you turn random people that you met into life-long friends? You can reduce the time investment by a lot. If you call someone on a spaced repetition schedule, you can make them internalize that the door is always open. Without requiring a large commitment on either side. And a spaced repetition schedule is easy to achieve - just think Fibonacci. I'll call you back in 3 days. Then 5. Then 8 (round down to a week). And so on. It feels like a lot of calls at the start. But it slows down fast. Over a lifetime, it is only around 20 calls.
Play around with it. If it was someone you met and hung out with on a cruise, maybe start at a week for that first call. Either way, you're reinforcing the idea that we like to talk, and the door is always open.
You can use a similar idea to keep people who move on from your workplace in your life. People always mean to stay in contact. Then don't. But with structured reinforcement, you can actually make it work.