You’re missing the initial step.

1. Assume that these proposals are correct.
2. Given the proposals are correct, all of them contain a common structure.
3. Given the common structure…

Both OP commenter and myself take umbrage with #1 (if I can speak for them; they make disagree with me). I assume that if we trace the sources for the letter that we’ll see the reasons we’re able to make all of these logical leaps using other results in the field that come out of these proposals. I also assume that, if one of these systems is the foundation for a fully consistent theory of quantum gravity, then its conclusions are valid. This paper doesn’t address that initial assumption though so things like the article summarizing it are begging the question.

There are many situations where we just have to agree to assume. If you read 14 and 36, you’ll find some of the core assumptions that go into this letter (both interesting ideas and the same authors so you can understand why they’d continue). An assumption Faisal makes is the rejection of objective observability which is one of those things you either believe or don’t believe. It’s analogous to the axiom of choice in that it could be contested but could be generally accepted.

Actually, F_QG is itself an assumption which isn’t backed up. See the paragraph before the one you quote when defining it. The beauty of axioms is that we can assume whatever we want but we need to either show nothing goes underneath it (eg Peano axioms) or have a very compelling case to make them (eg non-Euclidean geometry like parallel lines meet at infinity). This is a metasumary of some similar research at best. It’s not a proof in the way you think it is. Just because you don’t understand what you’re responding to doesn’t mean you’re right.

Yeah, the opening of the second paragraph on the page marked twelve basically says “we don’t have a true theory so we look at some proposals.” If anything, all it’s shown is that these specific proposals fall prey to the normal inability of mathematical systems to fully describe themselves, not that quantum gravity actively disproves a simulation. Everything after that might be sound if we trace all the sources. Nothing stood out as implausible or anything beyond some logical leaping. There was nothing that showed adding more to the system won’t fix the issues, which is the whole point of things like the updates their choice of set theory added to ZFC.

The current administration believes the same stuff. She left with the admin change yet agrees with things like the current admin’s approach to AI regulation.

If you haven’t, you should read When McKinsey Comes to Town and The Big Con.

You’re saying the same thing as the top of the thread. All of this is for now. At some point it could be advantageous for Apple to stop resisting US demands. It is important to understand and prepare for that while also accepting, for now, Apple provides the most corporate privacy of the corporate privacy options in the US.

1. This is actually a privacy problem. If any company can access the live feed, it opens up serious surveillance issues. Granted, we have to trust Apple won’t surveil…
2. I agree
3. This has more to do with content moderation than prudishness. If you’re being held accountable for what kids can access on your platform, you take a very draconian approach. Granted, no one is yelling at Dell for allowing Steam to install porn games…

My initial take on the sticker was the whole “fire exit git commit git push;” I do see this other perspective now

We’re just quitting without writing? Living very dangerously aren’t we?

It’s still just another type of ID so you can do lookups on it. Nothing would change. UUIDs are used all the time.

And that’s why native rights continue to be attacked even after recent surprising wins. The current court thinks treaties are bullshit and native rights have been getting fucked for a bit now.

2013-02-27 is also unambiguous unless you’re aware of a country that uses year day month, is not?

There are several people in the comments saying they have to use 27 Feb 2013 because they work with people all over the world. I’m really confused - what does that solve that 2013-02-13 does not? I know that not every language spells months the English way so “Dec” or “May” aren’t universal. Is there some country that regularly puts year day month that would break using ISO 8601 or RFC 3339?

I’d be curious to see a sorting algorithm that doesn’t handle YYYYY-MM-DD with YYYY-MM-DD properly. If you drop the dashes you still get a proper numeric order. If you sort by component, you still get the proper order. Maybe a string sort wouldn’t? Off the top of my head the languages I’m thinking either put longer strings later, giving us the proper order, or could put 1YYYY- ahead of 1YYY-M so maybe string sorting is the only one that’s out.

I do a lot of con/fair/vendor stuff and support. I have heard (but never done because that’s illegal) that among friends it’s very common to not check that flag to save those friends some headache. It’s also a really good way to get scammed if you do it for strangers on the internet.

I suspect that platforms push it down to the users to reduce their compliance burden. Why make life better for your end users by spending some money when you can just make life more complicated for small businesses by having them own everything even the things they don’t know about?

Not quite. The meme is referencing a new law that targets platforms when the money is sent as a payment. So, for example, if you Venmo your roommate 2k over a year for utilities, your roommate is fine unless you mark it as for a vendor (there’s a little toggle whose exact text I forget). This meme is making that joke.

Yeah, respec for a fee.

If the BL3 “balancing” shenanigans happen again, it would be best to wait a year or two to play BL4 so you know how Randy wants you to play the game and you won’t get frustrated when your single player build gets nerfed into oblivion.

This reminds me a lot of LogLog Games doing the same thing this time last year. It also talks about similar issues and goes pretty deep into normal Rust responses.

There are maybe three sentences worth of content.

Wrapped.

In stutters.

That make.

It.

Super hard.

To read.

It drives me nuts on LinkedIn; it’s sad to see it’s made the jump to “longform” on substack.