Yeah but most rpi projects don’t need a powerful alternative. I don’t need a full computer to run octoprint… But it’s still too hard and pricy to get a RPi

I’ve used them and they’re great

There’s totally a use case for a peripheral like a watch… But it’s only so you don’t have to pull your phone out of your pocket.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_identity_card

It’s actually fascinating. Asymmetric keys with public keys hosted by the government and the private key in your ID.

A 4 digit pin1 code is required to use the authorization key and a 5 digit pin2 is required to use the signing key.

The average Estonian signs 50 documents per year using this method.

Idk if you watched the video but the reason it works is mentioned in the video, if not explored in detail.

You have a digital id and a digital signature that is tied to you as a citizen.

Each vote has to be signed with your personal voter signature.

Government biometric requirements really aren’t a joke. They perform pretty regular audits and the liability of not deleting ID could be company ending.

They might not delete your biometrics, but I’d be shocked if they didn’t. It’s far more likely that they not only delete it but have an audit trail proving deletion.

Post the link to the archive.org mirror obvi

I like how the article slams USB 3.2 vs USB 4.0 but ignores that Google was saying " As of August 202_4_ "… A date that notable has not yet occurred.

Note for readers:

In per capita crime.

Idaho is 4th from the bottom, rank 47 (DC included)

Oregon is 10th from the top, rank 10 (DC included)

I was confused by the wording here so I wanted to add some clarity.

In violent crime per capita it’s closer.

Oregon is rank 26 and Idaho is 42.

Oregon all crime: 5610
Oregon violent: 342.4
Idaho all crime: 2465
Idaho violent: 241.4

All good, it was just very confusing lmfao

… How does that relate to the question asked?

Polyamory isn’t cheating though.

Cheating is, by definition, sex with another person against your partner’s will.

It’s not cheating if it’s consensual.

he doesn’t cheat on his wife

he doesn’t cheat on his wife so far.

What I’m saying is there’s a chance a churchgoer or a pastor is doing it for selfless reasons, where that is never the case for sports.

I never said otherwise.

But the whole point here is we’re talking not about selfishness we’re talking about manipulation.

Manipulation of others to do ones bidding is not the purpose of sports. Panem et circenses sure but not “do my bidding proles”

And I’m extremely aware of how people act and grow up in religions: I grew up in a very hierarchical religious structure and have seen the well intentioned abuses that people earnestly trying to help inflict on others. Manipulation is manipulation, ill intentioned or otherwise. And when you get higher up in a hierarchical structure that professes faith you will reach a point where everyone knows it’s fake and chooses to act otherwise.

At some point in an ecclesiastical hierarchy someone is manipulating people for their own benefit, knowing they’re doing so. They profess miracles while knowing there are none.

Above a certain level all you’ll find are charlatans.

The only religions that do not operate like this are unaffiliated churches, mystical, or nontheistic religions like Buddhism, Jainism etc.

If you profess a god and have a hierarchical structure your leaders manipulate you for their own gain or prestige. They do not believe.

You can play sports and not be manipulating people.

You cannot lead a church and not be manipulating people, even if unwittingly.

but it isn’t so clear cut

It’s demonstrably several orders of magnitude less complex. That’s mathematically clear cut.

Where is the cutoff on complexity required?

Philosophical question without an answer - We do know that it’s nowhere near the complexity of the brain.

both our brains and most complex AI are pretty much black boxes.

There are many things we cannot directly interrogate which we can still describe.

It’s impossible to say this system we know vanishingly little about is/isn’t dundamentally the same as this system we know vanishingly little about, just on a differentscale

It’s entirely possible to say that because we know the fundamental structures of each, even if we don’t map the entirety of eithers complexity. We know they’re fundamentally different - Their basic behaviors are fundamentally different. That’s what fundamentals are.

The first AGI will likely still have most people saying the same things about it, “it isn’t complex enough to approach a human brain.”

Speculation but entirely possible. We’re nowhere near that though. There’s nothing even approaching intelligence in LLMs. We’ve never seen emergent behavior or evidence of an id or ego. There’s no ongoing thought processes, no rationality - because that’s not what an LLM is. An LLM is a static model of raw text inputs and the statistical association thereof. Any “knowledge” encoded in an LLM exists entirely in the encoding - It cannot and will not ever generate anything that wasn’t programmed into it.

It’s possible that an LLM might represent a single, tiny, module of AGI in the future. But that module will be no more the AGI itself than you are your cerebellum.

But it doesn’t need to equal a brain to still be intelligent.

First thing I think we agree on.

This is exactly what I’m talking about when I argue with people who insist that an LLM is super complex and totally is a thinking machine just like us.

It’s nowhere near the complexity of the human brain. We are several orders of magnitude more complex than the largest LLMs, and our complexity changes with each pulse of thought.

The brain is amazing. This is such a cool image.

If you find a better place to discover music please lmk (no sarcasm)

Their discovery sucks lately and I hate it.