swansont

In order to speculate on how ghosts are able to interfere with people's active dreams, one would have to establish that ghosts exist. Without that, the idea does not qualify for discussion here. You can’t bootstrap your way past it. If you want to discuss how actual existing people/devices/technology might be able to interfere with dreams, you are free to open a thread on that

Yes, and it points to why “now” isn’t a well-defined notion. As to motion through time and space, there is the four-velocity, which has an associated invariant which is c

I don’t think that believing something to be true makes it so; that describes an opinion. It’s neither true nor false. In another thread I asked for an example of something that’s true that’s not a fact, and something that’s a fact that is not true. I don’t think it was answered there. Any takers?

I want to know how easy it is to cut or tear that material. I imagine the defense will do some tests, and if it’s difficult to do, they’ll go with “If it’s hard to split, you must acquit” or some such.

John Barron! The former olympian who was arrested has now been indicted by a grand jury https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/02/politics/former-olympic-rower-indicted-for-felony-related-to-reflecting-pool

On the internet, nobody knows if you’re a chickadee

Humans only parse and no procedural languages can be parsed? I think one issue here is that “parse” has three definitions and some equivocation might be going on here. If you apply the same definition, this implies you are claiming humans can’t look at computer code and understand what the code will do, because it’s procedural. How do you know that bees don’t parse the waggle dance?

Not if your claim is true. “All” and “some” are in conflict. Not always, but it can be done. You can rearrange addition and subtraction, and also multiplication and division. Operations that commute can be done in any order. Paraphrasing is restating in different terms but keeping the same meaning. There are lots of ways to write different code that achieves the same output. e.g. multiple sorting algorithms exist. Again, this is in conflict with your claim that you need all of it.

Which is it? Are they unparsable and we “must understand referents, all the referents, to understand any utterance” or do we understand some of the waggle dance? Waggling isn’t? You “know” this, even though we haven’t figured it all out yet? You “know” the movements are literal?

If we share no referents and you can’t understand unless you know all referents, how did we decipher the bee dance? You say it’s symbolic and therefore and yet we have been able to parse it. How is it not symbolic while sign language allegedly is?

0.7 nm vs 2.1 nm would mean 1/3 the size in each dimension, which means 9x as many transistors per unit area. Most announcements I recall (when I was paying closer attention to AMD vs Intel) are similar kinds of jumps. They went from 90 nm — 65 nm — 45 nm — 32 nm — 24/28 nm — 22 nm — 20 nm — 16 nm — 14 nm — 10 nm — 7 nm — 5 nm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_scale_examples Roughly doubling the number of transistors seems to be the point where it’s been economical to switch scales. Chip manufacturers aren’t going to wait and get left behind while a competitor comes out with a significantly faster processor (edit/rant: I tried just giving the numbers with no units and the board software kept parsing groups of them as phone numbers)

I’m looking at an incremental ejection of mass If you change the exhaust KE, you change the KE imparted to the rocket. Momentum is conserved. But the point is that you must give a lot of energy to the exhaust, even if the energy conversion in the engine is 100% efficient. This is about the energy budget of a rocket - most of it doesn’t end up as KE of the rocket. It’s a ratio, so there is no “right side” of the equation OK, but the situation under discussion is something that triggers a UAP sighting report, which means you are maneuvering and leaving the planet again.

Friendship (and any relationship) may have certain psychological and sociological commonalities for most people, but it’s also very dependent on the individuals and their personalities. What’s true for you might not be true for others. Examples abound of people who have very publicly erred because they assume that what motivates them and what they value is what motivates others, and what others value

That verbal communication can be garbled. The telephone game is strictly about reproduction errors; the words need not carry a message purple monkey dishwasher. Authors are conscious and can understand the message they conveys. LLMs are not and cannot. We are intelligent. What does this have to do with LLMs? Emphasis on WE (meaning intelligent humans) Any intent you see in a message from a LLM is something you are projecting on it. As I said, you’ve expressed thos more than once. Yes. Why did you feel the need to write several paragraphs arguing the point if you agree? Presumably you use it as a translator because you are not fluent in one of the languages involved, so I don’t see how you can see, much less clearly see, if it went wrong. Similarly for its use as a collaborator if it’s used for expertise you lack.

According to which observer? Relativity only allows you to make statements about invariant quantities without specifying what a quantity is relative to.