vimeo.com/1168468796?f... #enshitification
02.03.2026 18:26
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
The Art of Deal,
Arthur Schopenhauer, 1831
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art...
post a perfect album from the 90s that isn't nirvana, pearl jam, soundgarden, or alice in chains
www.discogs.com/master/32639...
Great journalism by New York Times on algorithmic price discrimination ↘️ www.nytimes.com/video/opinio...
Scientists are discovering the process that supplies the brain with a remarkably rich picture of what is happening throughout the body — a picture that is mostly hidden from our consciousness. nyti.ms/4prNoRf
Imho a better definition should be based on selecting good questions, which is much harder. Problem solving tends to ignore that the chosen problem might be a based on a silly framing. Being able to navigate all the various dimensions of abstractions is a skill that provides clues for intelligence.
Microsoft, Google say their data centers create thousands of jobs. Their permit filings say otherwise
https://restofworld.org/2025/data-centers-jobs-microsoft-google-chile/?utm_campaign=row-social&utm_source=bluesky&utm_medium=social&utm_content=1763146621
Have you tried the ones that have a square diameter? Spaghetti alla chitarra
e.g. from Rummo, really great.
Yeah, unsatisfying, isn’t it.
Yes,they invent different stuff like eg particles. The functors will only work in one direction, not in both.
I doubt it, after thinking about it 😅
germline group 😂
Ha, I just started listening to the new Mindscape podcast with Jacob Barandes. Couldn’t be more on point.
According to the MWI interpretation actuality is just another word for "on your branch". There is no fundamental gap, it just feels weird and anti Occam's razor to postulate all this unobservable effects. But MWI people would argue that Occam's razor is about minimal theory assumptions.
But it explains the probability of other things to happen relative to you (in your branch). It is not fundamentally different, it is primarily a more twisted way of looking at dynamics, as no other helpers are introduced. It is the same maths. Nobody questions that.
Just it feels like pretty irrelevant to think about the other branches from that perspective. So you’d want to have some theory boilerplate like a modality that automatically picks your branch and does all the necessary book keeping.
Well, it does. It is just a little more twisted to think about it. It is about probabilities on your branch.
David Wallace would likely argue that the MWI offers the ultimate explanation: the mathematics of quantum mechanics is enough. We don't need to add mysterious collapses or hidden entities. The insight is in understanding the physics of decoherence and the logic of decision-making under uncertainty.
I think the insight from this line of thought is the following:
An interpretation is not just driven by consistency but also by the explanatory purpose. That's why MWI feels so awkward.
On a second thought it is somewhat more complicated:
Even many worlds is not 1:1.
There is a choice of basis for the Hilbert space involved and a choice how to slice up the world into subsystems.
But other interpretations are clearly more complicated, adding new things like e.g. particle positions.
Hence 1:1, the maths taken at face value is the reality.
I mean the whole discussion about interpretations seems to be along the lines to defend them AGAINST other interpretations.
I am not at all in favor of many worlds. But it takes the most radical shortcut in terms of interpretation. It basically says that no further interpretation is required.
It is not my opinion that there is the one ultimate interpretation. My opinion is that we can also take a formal approach to comparing them, by formalizing the interpretations themselves. Imho this is possible and will provide more clarity.
Many worlds is the 1:1 approach, the others are not.
It might me helpful to formally describe the interpretations themselves as categories. The objects will be different, the morphisms will be different, the boundary of scope might be different.
And then it should be insightful to think about the functors to the category of Hilbert spaces for each.
Disagree. I believe the typical position is that one interpretation is correct and the others are not correct.
Maybe the insight is that all interpretations are in a homotopy sense the same. The math providing to path from one to the other.
Exactly. China and Chinese bigtech are doing admittedly much smarter moves with all the strategic investment in mathematics expertise - take a look at the initiatives of Huawei for example.
I wish Europe could get their act together re universities in this field & setting the stage for risk capital.
Device independent physics, discarding all assumptions about the underlying systems, is literally meta-physics - studying the rules of the game.
Open source besides the folklore has always been a powerplay strategy for those who can afford to buy their market share/dominance.
