for profit software is pretty gross tho. it can be made indefinitely complex, and people can make and sell tools to patchwork the complexity together, but then u need more tools to patchwork all the tools together ...

and u end up in aggregators aggregated aggregators type situation where optimal solutions never arise because we don't actually cooperate enough to produce them

ai is fitting into the notion that this is all bullshit ... even if not in the correct way

This is an intuitive proof that directly refutes Turing's intuition underlying his arguments for undecidability, by rectifying the decision paradox found in the diagonal computation for computable numbers. Once this paradox is rectified we find the resulting computation sufficient to compute a direct diagonal, but not sufficient to compute an inverse diagonal that could be used to "diagonalize" the computable numbers as Cantor did with the reals.

This is an application of novel intuition that I do not know how to formalize into more traditional forms of expression for computability. But Turing's rational also did not utilize those more formal expressions, which is why I'm applying the novel intuition directly against his paper and not elsewhere.

this is my paper AMA

or just rag on me like everyone else does :/

> The worst people in the world already know this and run our industry. There's no reason we have to accept them.

tbh until we change the way to go about politics, or collective decision making, this isn't going to change.

this went nowhere -_-

in 2 weeks

u wouldn't end up protecting them

government needs to bfto on repressing speech

literally nothing is going to come of this because there weren't any serious bomb threats.

how do you know it wasn't just trolls trying to get KF taken down?

More importantly, does he even care if that were the case? (All signs point to no.)

yes it is. free speech as a philosophy is about allowing all speech, cause other it's just mostly free speech.

you're just using the words to act like you have a moral high ground you don't actually have.

> free speech as a philosophy is about allowing all speech, cause other it's just mostly free speech

Then that's a philosophy virtually no one actually holds.

Very few people think death threats, fraud, etc. fall under free speech. If you do your speech at 3am with a loudspeaker in a residential neighborhood, you're probably getting dinged for "disturbing the peace", because other people have rights too, and society winds up having to resolve the conflicts.

In this case, a similarly important right - freedom of association - also applies.

> Then that's a philosophy virtually no one actually holds.

correct. most people don't hold a free speech philosophy. people just like taking a high moral ground they don't actually have.

> Very few people think death threats, fraud, etc. fall under free speech

us govt can't prosecute death threats unless they can prove intent beyond you just saying it, they can't also arbitrarily prosecute for lying

> If you do your speech at 3am with a loudspeaker in a residential neighborhood, you're probably getting dinged for "disturbing the peace", because other people have rights too, and society winds up having to resolve the conflicts.

if you said the same thing at a much lower volume, no one would care. the problem there is noise pollution, not the content of the speech said.