He showed me logs from his web server indicating my pod was pulling refreshes every five minutes. I'd like to stop that, per his request. What do I do?
Does yarn respect that
refresh = 7200 line?
He showed me logs from his web server indicating my pod was pulling refreshes every five minutes. I'd like to stop that, per his request. What do I do?
Does yarn respect that
\\# refresh = 7200=
# refresh = 7200
set.=
Converts newsletters into atom feeds.
Oh wow Frictional Games has a new game coming out and I didn't notice till now. I'm a really big fan of the Amnesia series (and survival games in general).
Oh wow Frictional Games has a new game coming out and I didn't notice till now. I'm a really big fan of the Amnesia series (and survival games in general).
h-card and other records, and now you have additional data. webfinger seems to be stuck in the "account-first" mindset. I guess that's how it's different.
h-card (https://indieweb.org/h-card) and related standards.
webfinger info to my web site, so I installed it and....what now? It seems to work fine, but what the heck is webfinger good for?
1. If true, this is pretty awful
2. Is this source credible? "Secjuice", which they are citing, seems a little sketchy to me
3. Literally every community network I've ever been on (barring yarn I hope) has had problems with child pornography. It's a problem on the internet generally. That doesn't excuse it or minimize it, but it's a big question whether the problem is more acute on mastodon than on the internet generally
According to this tool here's what's discovered:
| endpoint | URL |
| ---------------------- | --------------------------------------- |
| authorization_endpoint | https://anthony.buc.ci/indieauth/auth |
| indieauth-metadata | _No indieauth-metadata endpoint found._ |
| micropub | _No micropub endpoint found._ |
| microsub | _No microsub endpoint found._ |
| redirect_uri | _No redirect_uri endpoint found._ |
| token_endpoint | _No token_endpoint endpoint found._ |
| webmention | https://anthony.buc.ci/webmention |
I'm a little surprised by the
token_endpoint not being found--isn't that part of IndieAuth? Also, though webmention is supposedly found, it doesn't seem to work. I get 404s when I hit it.
Whoa š¤Æ
> An FPGA board that fits inside your USB port
Whoa š¤Æ
yarn.social? I try using my URL as a micropub endpoint but get errors whenever I do that, and it's unclear to me where to look to see if yarn.social is a valid micropub endpoint. It'd be good to know what it can/can't do because personally I'd like to have a fully-compliant IndieWeb setup and use yarn for as much of that as possible.
This fellow Toby Schachman makes really cool stuff. I think I posted about Recursive Drawing before, but Appratus linked above is that plus lots of additional features. Watch the video on that page; it's amazing stuff!
It's true, deleting the newest tabs would probably be noticeable and annoying, so preferentially deleting older tabs would be better. I don't know if the browser keeps stats about "last tab visited" or "number of times tab was visited", but closing tabs that haven't been visited often, or haven't been visited in a long time, would probably also be good heuristics. Hmmm š¤
I've been very happy with XMPP, personally. It's pretty straightforward to self-host. There are bridges between XMPP and a number of other services including Matrix, so there might even be a relatively painless migration path.
> Now I have those endless text files with hundreds of links, more like a black hole than a Reading list.
Yes, me too. Well, I did have several, but I eventually got rid of them and switched back to keeping a lot of tabs open š
I'm wondering about a browser extension that randomly closes a tab each time you open one, once you've accumulated more than some upper limit you can set, and randomly closes two tabs if you're over some other, higher limit, to get you back down to your upper limit if you go too far over it. Right now, with 153 tabs open, I wouldn't even notice if a bunch were randomly closed.
> I say also, the habit of cleaning your lists is as good as making it bigger.
Oof, an excellent point. Easier said than done!
You've also reminded me I need to buy some clothes in 2023 šØ
Naturally I could spend a bit of time thinking about how to categorize the information and then file it appropriately, or decide I don't need it. Maybe I'm just an undisciplined information hoarder and should work on that. But I don't think that's quite it. I adopted a few strategies in 2022 that were designed to help with that particular issue, but they didn't work for me. No matter what happens I accumulate stuff faster than I categorize and file it, and with some things I just can't bring myself to delete it.
What I've actually always wanted, and want to experiment with, is a nearly-frictionless way of automatically categorized/tagging/whatever-ing a piece of information in such a way that it has some hope of being found again. The startup I co-founded years ago was working on this exact kind of thing but for research scientists. Unfortunately, it suffered the same fate as 90% of startups. But I keep thinking it might be time to revisit some of those ideas.
I have a bunch of tabs about Combinatory Categorial Grammar, ray tracing, Answer Set Programming, and reservoir computing that could probably go. Some of those have sat open for at least a year. But I might want to read more about those some day!!!
So far, the best way I've found to get rid of all these stray tabs is to get pissed off at whatever browser I'm currently used to using and switch to another one. Then my natural laziness kicks in and I only transfer the tabs I absolutely need.
So far, the best way I've found to get rid of all these stray tabs is to get pissed off at whatever browser I'm currently used to using and switch to another one. Then my natural laziness kicks in and I only transfer the tabs I absolutely need.
https://files.bucci.onl:8443/f/ffb5f24a1468418f9881/
Because those are very obviously different, and merit different words to describe. One is an inconvenience, while the other rises to the level of threatening your liberty for years.
You really use the same word for those two phenomena?
Roman censor
Calling out content moderators for abusive behavior is important, naturally. But that's not censorship, it's bog standard abuse of power. Words mean stuff etc.
Calling out content moderators for abusive behavior is important, naturally. But that's not censorship, it's bog standard abuse of power. Words mean stuff etc.
Calling out content moderators for abusive behavior is important, naturally. But that's not censorship, it's bog standard abuse of power. Words mean stuff etc.
Here are two podcast interviews with Ćmile Torres that are highly critical of the longtermist way of thinking that is essentially implied by the "simulation hypothesis":
- Donāt Fall for the Longtermism Sales Pitch
- The Dangerous Ideology of the Tech Elite
Here's a more academic-y paper arguing that machines like computers can never be conscious the way human beings can (and therefore, by extension, we cannot be living in a simulation that runs on a computer).
The paper above only cites a handful of sources, which I think is one of its shortcomings, but its core argument has been made in a variety of ways for quite some time. I'd call out the philosopher Mark Bickhard, who's argued quite forcefully (in my opinion) that the materialist way of thinking cannot account for basic human cognitive phenomena like intention, desire, beliefs, qualia, and the like. Any computer simulation that simulates how matter behaves in Newtonian or even relativistic physics therefore cannot either. There might be something to find in quantum field theory (according to Bickhard) but it is unclear whether that can be *simulated* adequately within any kind of computer, so the question is wide open (in my own opinion).
- Donāt Fall for the Longtermism Sales Pitch
- The Dangerous Ideology of the Tech Elit
Here's a more academic-y paper arguing that machines like computers can never be conscious the way human beings can (and therefore, by extension, we cannot be living in a simulation that runs on a computer).
The paper above only cites a handful of sources, which I think is one of its shortcomings, but its core argument has been made in a variety of ways for quite some time. I'd call out the philosopher Mark Bickhard, who's argued quite forcefully (in my opinion) that the materialist way of thinking cannot account for basic human cognitive phenomena like intention, desire, beliefs, qualia, and the like. Any computer simulation that simulates how matter behaves in Newtonian or even relativistic physics therefore cannot either. There might be something to find in quantum field theory (according to Bickhard) but it is unclear whether that can be *simulated* adequately within any kind of computer, so the question is wide open (in my own opinion).
- Physicists Confirm That We're Not Living In a Computer Simulation | NOVA | PBS
This is what I find on a cursory search. But, if you'll permit me to fall back on my PhD training, I can say that a lot of these simulation arguments are prima facie horseshit because they make a couple sneaky, quick-and-dirty assumptions (like "functionalism") that have been debunked over and over and over again in the history of AI research. I'm happy to go into that more, but it'll take a long time to sepll out. I'd also be happy to deconstruct all the fallacies in the video, but again that'll take a long time. Suffice it to say that this video is š©
- Physicists Confirm That We're Not Living In a Computer Simulation | NOVA | PBS
This is what I find on a cursory search. But, if you'll permit me to fall back on my PhD training, I can say that a lot of these simulation arguments are prima facie horseshit because they make a couple sneaky, quick-and-dirty assumptions (like "functionalism") that have been debunked over and over and over again in the history of AI research. I'm happy to go into that more, but it'll take a long time to sepll out. Suffice it to say that this video is š©
The "simulation hypothesis" (NOT theory, because it cannot be falsified and is not formalized in any way) was, as the narrator says, put forward by Nick Bostrum, who appears to have been influenced by far right ideology. Again, why not? The far right thinks that a small handful of people should run the world and everyone else can get fucked--just like NPCs. Bostrum's "ideas" mesh tightly with so-called "longtermism", which some have cited as an extremely dangerous set of ideas.
Unfortunately this very much like so many well-funded, well-hyped, self-serving, and ultimately very awful ideas that Silicon Valley and their supporters love. If you'd like an antidote, simply google "we are NOT living in a simulation":
- No, Weāre Not Living in a Simulation | by Richard Johns | Predict | Medium
- We Do Not Live in a Simulation. A terrific new documentary is aboutā¦ | by Will Leitch | Medium
- Expert explains why we DON'T live in a computer simulation | Daily Mail Online
- [Why We Donāt Live in a Simulation | by Tim Lou, PhD | Ī¦sicist Ī¼sings | Medium](https://medium.com/physicist-musings/why-we-dont-live-in-a-simulation-a-physicist-s-perspectiv
The "simulation hypothesis" (NOT theory, because it cannot be falsified and is not formalized in any way) was, as the narrator says, put forward by Nick Bostrum, who appears to have been influenced by far right ideology. Again, why not? The far right thinks that a small handful of people should run the world and everyone else can get fucked--just like NPCs. Bostrum's "ideas" mesh tightly with so-called "longtermism", which some have cited as an extremely dangerous set of ideas.
It's just one of many well-funded, well-hyped, self-serving, and ultimately very awful ideas that Silicon Valley and their supporters love. If you'd like an antidote, simply google "we are NOT living in a simulation":
- No, Weāre Not Living in a Simulation | by Richard Johns | Predict | Medium
- We Do Not Live in a Simulation. A terrific new documentary is aboutā¦ | by Will Leitch | Medium
- Expert explains why we DON'T live in a computer simulation | Daily Mail Online
- [Why We Donāt Live in a Simulation | by Tim Lou, PhD | Ī¦sicist Ī¼sings | Medium(https://medium.com/physicist-musings/why-we-dont-live-in-a-simulation-a-physicist-s-perspectiv
The "simulation hypothesis" (NOT theory, because it cannot be falsified and is not formalized in any way) was, as the narrator says, put forward by Nick Bostrum, who appears to have been influenced by far right ideology. Again, why not? The far right thinks that a small handful of people should run the world and everyone else can get fucked--just like NPCs. Bostrum's "ideas" mesh tightly with so-called "longtermism", which some have cited as an extremely dangerous set of ideas.
It's just one of many well-funded, well-hyped, self-serving, and ultimately very awful ideas that Silicon Valley and their supporters love. If you'd like an antidote, simply google "we are NOT living in a simulation":
- No, Weāre Not Living in a Simulation | by Richard Johns | Predict | Medium
- We Do Not Live in a Simulation. A terrific new documentary is aboutā¦ | by Will Leitch | Medium
- Expert explains why we DON'T live in a computer simulation | Daily Mail Online
The "simulation hypothesis" (NOT theory, because it cannot be falsified and is not formalized in any way) was, as the narrator says, put forward by Nick Bostrum, who appears to have been influenced by far right ideology. Again, why not? The far right thinks that a small handful of people should run the world and everyone else can get fucked--just like NPCs. Bostrum's "ideas" mesh tightly with so-called "longtermism", which some have cited as an extremely dangerous set of ideas.
It's just one of many well-funded, well-hyped, self-serving, and ultimately very awful ideas that Silicon Valley and their supporters love. If you'd like an antidote, simply google "we are NOT living in a simulation":
- No, Weāre Not Living in a Simulation | by Richard Johns | Predict | Medium
- We Do Not Live in a Simulation. A terrific new documentary is aboutā¦ | by Will Leitch | Medium
- Expert explains why we DON'T live in a computer simulation | Daily Mail Online
- [Why We Donāt Live in a Simulation | by Tim Lou, PhD | Ī¦sicist Ī¼sings | Medium](https://medium.com/physicist-musings/why-we-dont-live-in-a-simulation-a-physicist-s-perspectiv
*No more
Fucken
Tokens
No more
Fucken
Tokens*