I too don’t know what this means. After much searching I believe this could be a reference to the whirling dervishes of Sufism. More likely than dowsing in my opinion.
I too don’t know what this means. After much searching I believe this could be a reference to the whirling dervishes of Sufism. More likely than dowsing in my opinion.
Where were you in '91? You could have won Randi’s prize! wikipedia on Dowsing
Where I was going was: effects can be different even if all choices and results are unethical. If one cares about the possible impacts of ones actions, consideration beyond “well it’s all unethical, so whatever” could be warranted.
are all unethical choices equal? Surely there are better and worse things?
It does smack of hypocrisy but I’ve been feeling more it’s a paradox of tolerance thing. Which itself a sort of hypocrisy now that I’m thinking about it. Huh.
If I don’t show you a video because I don’t think you’d enjoy it, that’s different from not showing it to you because I don’t want you to see it.
I wouldn’t disagree those are different reasons for not wanting to show a video but both are curations based on biases.
I guess I just have a more neutral connotation for bias than “biased against you for others’ own interests” and so I didn’t find bias to be a useful term here to distinguish the reasons behind curation choices.
Nothing really in disagreement here, just fiddling with common usage.
How is bias not inherent to curation? Preference for one thing over another is bias. Curation is literally showing you things it thinks you’re biased to like. These groups aren’t revealing their secret sauce for curation algorithms so we’d never know anyway.
nose hair trimmer attachment works well around the ears I’ve found (but it’s loud!)
cold cuts? Have you seen the price of a bag of chips? Ridiculous. I don’t need to spend 5 bucks to hate myself later after I’ve eaten too many.
$30 to buy an old mechanical pencil on ebay you remember having in highschool? No problemo.
it’s a [not obvious I suppose] joke
no, no, I’m certain I’ve seen this dish before. That’s ratatouille!
seriously, though. That looks good.
I don’t think you can reply to a text message using a third party watch on iOS but you can with your Apple watch. I’ve seen that cited as an exclusive API.
Something is stopping another messaging app to have sms fallback and be the default messaging app on iOS. It’s iOS.
DOJ wants to get in on some of that hot euro DMA action
your self driving car will just drive itself back to the lot when your payment is late
What about the equivalent of foveated rendering? They’re only simulating the bits conscious observers can see, the rest is …not simulated to the same level? I guess you’re kind of going there with your model within a model thing. If we are the point of the simulation, there doesn’t seem to be much reason to simulate much beyond the planet besides what little astronomers can work with? Gonna crash this thing with enough players!
There’s a weird SF story that has blood cell sized intelligences and reality starts to break because there are so many observers on such a small scale that reality can’t change without being observed and then they all “poof” into another dimension or something and humans are left alone again. Anyway, the number of players crashing the simulation made me think of it. Blood Music by Greg Bear.
hypothetically cool, and very hypothetically legal
that’s a no on the cruciform for me, dawg. Yeesh. I’ll take everything else from there though, Poulsen, hawking drive, farcasters (maybe without the yoke of the AI techno core though), etc.
gonna find some merry men and get a band going!