I'm surprised that binocular cameras aren't more of a thing for robots. It seems technically simple and cheap, and I feel like it should be very amenable to deep learning image approaches (using a six-layer RGB+RGB image input, overlaying the two images on each other).
The only things I've found are niche and expensive bits of hardware.
I guess it's easy enough to hack together, and hope there's no latency issues between two cameras, but this RPI has a limited number of ports...
Also of course the problem that creating ever-more-frenetic experiences isn't anybody's idea of fun. Proactive notifications sound good but feel bad.
So what does a reactive tool actually do? What would people ask for that it could provide?
It does this on a global scale, but it seems like this should be doable on a personal scale. The opportunities aren't just to create a personal search engine, but also personal cross-cutting views or operations.
But what we seldom do is actually _do_ this, actually have personal entities that scan and learn. Even though it's not particularly hard. I can't quite decide why it's so hard... are we worried about what an entity might do? If it might go crazy? Or is it too hard to get any value from it?
I wonder if we could do more by replicating a search engine's approach to information management, but in different and more personal scopes.
Google works quite a bit differently from, say, an application-specific search engine: it doesn't operate on an underlying database, it freely traverses across applications, and it includes understanding from that entire system.
It does this by acting as a user, using the same surface area that a person inspects.
Novosibirsk, which I don't think I have ever in my life heard of, is the 3rd most populous city i Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novosibirsk
Huh. I guess it's effectively the capital of Siberia (but Siberia has no capital... cultural and economic center of Siberia? But not the physical center...)
"Tpmfail: a timing attack that can extract keys from secure computing chips in 4-20 minutes" https://boingboing.net/2019/11/14/descartes-destroyed.html
I'm not like super into keeping up on all these different kinds of attacks, but for once these timing attacks strike me as something that works on a cinematic hacking timescale. You can actually imagine someone breaking in, setting up this attack, and seeing a progress bar that the protagonist anxiously watches while other events transpire.
@bartleby I think the question the article invites is: (a) does it matter if you believe in god? (b) why? (c) does it matter if other people believe in god? (d) why?
I don't think there's right answers to those questions, but how you answer those questions may define your tribe.
Obviously I have to apply this to myself, narcissist-style. The proposed underlying motivation for both New Atheism and social justice is hamartiology: the subfield of theology dealing with the study of how sin enters the universe.
I always found New Atheism tedious and uninteresting. And honestly I've never felt engaged by social justice either. I... don't care that much about how sin enters the universe. I don't think I believe in sin. I don't think its source is an indictment. Eh.
This analysis of New Atheism – it's rise and fall – is interesting contemporary anthropology: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/10/30/new-atheism-the-godlessness-that-failed/
Spoiler: the theory is that the New Atheists directed their energy towards Social Justice (the atheist remainers hate social justice, which is why they remained, which incorrectly creates the opposite impression of the original alignment).
There's nothing super notable here, except the term "hedonistic sustainability" which I want to file away for future use...
And metamodernism leaves the question: useful for _what_? How do we decide what to select? Metamodernism only tells us to pick and choose according to some utility that metamodernism cannot itself define.
This emptied-out philosophy is the postmodern curse that I do not believe metamodernism is able to address.
This metamodernism feels a bit like a utilitarian intellectualism. It doesn't matter what is right, only what is useful. There is no claim of truth, but now that we are all steeped in postmodernism it's no longer necessary to emphasize the doubt. Instead it's a project to construct something out of this doubt.
It feels a little like the TED Talk version of intellectualism. Life hacks as a philosophy.
Metamodern is maybe a combination of doubt along the lines of postmodernism, but applied to intellectual approaches themselves. Thus it fuses modernism and postmodernism and whatever else.
They started the podcast talking about the idea: "all models are incorrect, but some are useful." And it feels like that's the underlying theory of metamodernism, as presented.
Postmodernism is mostly skeptical. Ezra Klein went as far as to say that postmodernism's purpose was to seed doubt.
The thing everyone is familiar with is the idea of multiple narratives. Some read that as relativism, I think it's a bit more modest, just making explicit what is obvious but conveniently ignored: everything is viewed by people from individual and diverse perspectives, and action (including intellectual action) follows from those perspectives.
I think the shift goes something like:
Pre-modernist thought was hierarchical, intellectual authority matched other existing hierarchies (e.g., religious authority).
Modernism depersonalized that knowledge, creating intellectual institutions instead of intellectual thought following external institutions. Modernism emphasizing big ideas, big narratives, all-encompassing theories. Marxism strikes me as very modern.
Listening to this interview (that has bad permalinks): https://megaphone.link/VMP7092874875 "A mind-bending, reality-warping conversation with John Higgs"
An interesting part is talking about the development of modernism to postmodernism to "metamodernism" – the last not a term I've heard before, and Higgs may be coining it.
@lmorchard Not even...?
In an effort to get a shit chaser I couldn't help myself but read local news comments. I found this gem:
"What is needed is more carbon in the atmosphere to feed more plant growth and consume more water which in turn provides more oxygen and a better climate. Satellite data proves we now have more trees than ever but can use even more. They thrive on carbon so keep burning those fossil fuels or nature will burn more trees to get it."
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!