deleted by creator

Except that a rose/red filter would pass wavelengths centered around red, while a magenta filter would block wavelengths centered around green. So a magenta filter would let in proportionally more blue.

They are dichromats—with red and blue receptors—as opposed to most humans, who are trichromats with red, green, and blue receptors. So in terms of colors, they can distinguish roughly the same colors as a human looking through a magenta filter.

Also, mammalian and avian predators are perceptive enough that they could tell we were acting like prey if we reacted to them the way we do to snakes and spiders. Alert attention without fear or aggression is probably the safest way to interact with such predators without provoking them—natural selection doesn’t care why we behave that way, as long as we do it.

I think part of it is that predators instinctively attract our attention—they fascinate us so we don’t get used to them and turn our backs on them.

Eight billion people currently have this condition, and they’ve all survived so far.

I’m currently reading Orbital by Samantha Harvey—it’s a meditative, conflict-free novel following the inner thoughts of six astronauts during a routine day aboard the ISS, as they watch the world turning under them and contemplate humanity.

Or maybe a server that lets you create multiple, “connected” accounts at the same time, together with a client that combines the accounts into one view.

I remember the steady turnover of social media networks leading up to Facebook—the joke was that kids would migrate to a new platform every time their parents joined their current one. I think there’s a kernel of truth there that’s still a potential weak point on Facebook: people want to have distinct, non-overlapping online personas for different social groups (family, work, friends, etc) without the overhead of maintaining multiple accounts. That seems like an avenue a potential fediverse Facebook alternative might exploit.

“We’ve got now three humans with Neuralinks implanted and they’re all working well,” Musk said

I thought the first one had more or less stopped working.

The development of astronomy in that system would get stuck after Kepler—Newton’s laws would be dismissed since they couldn’t explain the orbital resonances.

The Aqara Cube looks interesting—it uses gestures instead of buttons.

So they’re basically asking scientists to pay for the destruction of science journalism?

Over time, cultural institutions (i.e., not just individual stores or game companies, but the shared processes of running such companies) evolve to perpetuate themselves as efficiently as possible. This results in an accumulation of corner-cutting techniques over time that degrades the quality of everything they produce in the process of self-perpetuation.

But “enshittification” is something more specific: as originally defined by Cory Doctorow, it’s when a company convinces its investors to pay for something that attracts users without immediate profit, with the promise of future profit extraction once a large-enough user base is captured; then destroys its user experience to extract this profit; and in the process usually loses its user base before the investors have seen the promised returns.

Constitutionally, I think “being elected to the office of President” means winning the actual Electoral College vote (which isn’t what Trump’s supporters are disputing).

Our results also explicitly show that the emergence of classicality is ubiquitous, that almost all initial wave functions can give rise to interesting universes, and that the branching of the wave function is a priori not related to any arrow of time.

I haven’t read the whole paper yet, but these all sound exciting.

The day the Chicxulub asteroid hit.

Whichever day of the week it was, the subsequent 3.4 billion weeks have not yet balanced out the score.

That’s like saying “the problem with cancer isn’t the unrestrained tumor growth, it’s the depletion of resources for the rest of the body”—the two go hand in hand.

Billionaires are almost always created by starting with substantial familial wealth, taking large financial risks, and getting lucky. They then generally misattribute this luck to personal excellence, causing them to underestimate future risks.

On the other hand, they also induce institutions to change in ways that really do insulate them as a class from the consequences of risk. Both of these factors would tend to reduce their fear of losing their wealth and status.

But what about second breakfast?