You must be someone who hates working from home, because home is the place where we should all feel relaxed, right? What about working in the garden? The garden is certainly a relaxation spot, but god forbid you get some rays of sunshine while you work.

I understand the desire to pity people who work at the beach. But then again, I pity anyone who ended up living near Silicon Valley. Think of all the money though!

Have you tried disabling the file indexing service? I think it’s called Baloo?

Usually it doesn’t have too much overhead, but in combination with certain workflows it could be a bottleneck.

Pretty sure I would keep bumping my head trying to drink from that glass of water 😂

I think it’s good for people to have children. At least one and preferably no more than two.

If we contain population growth, the riches already created are for the taking for generations to come and the planet finally gets a rest.

It does require a reckoning with the capitalist elite that would like to produce anyway, but I feel that may be coming regardless of our feelings towards children.

Your comment is fair. I try to follow my own philosophy, so I picked a side and stand for it. I feel strongly about it, so that’s why I may use hyperbole at times.

Yet I understand it’s not everybody’s opinion, so I try to respect those people even when I don’t necessarily respect their positions. It’s a tough line to draw sometimes.

So I’m the literal author of the Philosophy of Balance, and I don’t see any reason why LLMs are deserving of a balanced take.

This is how the Philosophy of Balance works: We should strive…

• for balance within ourselves
• for balance with those around us
• and ultimately, for balance with Life and the Universe at large

But here’s the thing: LLMs and the technocratic elite funding them are a net negative to humanity and the world at large. Therefore, to strive for a balanced approach towards AI puts you on the wrong side of the battle for humanity, and therefore human history.

Pick a side.

May the depression be long lasting and heartfelt in the United States of AI.

I’m gonna wait for backup on this one.

As someone who dealt with psychosis in the past (diagnosed bipolar), I’ll happily say that psychosis is not a valid excuse to push bullshit onto others.

If you need others to point you to specifics, you need to rethink your life choices and stop using LLMs.

As the author of https://blog.fiberplane.com/blog/writing-redux-reducers-in-rust/ , I do feel offended. Very badly.

I have it on reliable authority that women like boobs too. Source: am married

That’s why you should go work at big corporate enterprises. Then you have both job security as well as the ability to spend as much time as necessary on getting things right. And you might even learn to say no to middle management.

I’m hoping early 2026, but I’m looking to hire a platform owner for Android, since I don’t use it myself. So it’s 🤞

Such a silly thing, but I’m still proud of my Sudoku Pi game: https://apps.apple.com/nl/app/sudoku-pi/id6467504425?l=en-GB

It’s basically a new finger-friendly UX for Sudoku. The game is also open-source, and an Android build is coming Soon ™.

I think you’re hitting some good points, but the thing we need to teach these boys is that they shouldn’t be looking towards society for rewards. Society’s rewards have become a gamified rat race, so the way out is men to look inward. Not gonna lie though, that’s easier said than done…

I recently wrote a post too that touches on this topic: https://philosophyofbalance.com/blog/the-emancipation-of-men/

I am literally wrapping up a novel where the protagonist is the antagonist at the same time. I’m not the first one to write such a story of course, but holy shit did I have to work through some internal trauma to write that story to a suitable ending. I understand why many people may not want to bother…

Don’t be so gloomy! You’re an individual number too! 😜

Shun the nonbeliever!

I’m not sure I agree with the “no one claimed” part, because I think the proof is specifically targeting the claim that it is more likely than not that we are living in a simulation due to the “ease of scaling” if simulated realities are a thing. Which I think is one of the core premises of simulation theory.

In any case, I don’t think the reasoning only applied to “full scale” simulations. After all, let’s follow the thought experiment indeed and presume that quantum mechanics is indeed the result of some kind of “lazy evaluation” optimisation within a simulation. Unless you want to argue solipsism in addition to simulation theory, the simulation is still generating perceptions for every single conscious actor within the simulation, and the simulation therefore still needs to implement some kind of “theory of everything” to ensure all perceptions across actors are being generated consistently.

And ultimately, we still end up with the requirement that there is some kind of “higher order” universe whose existence is fundamentally unknowable and beyond our understanding. Presuming that such a universe exists and manages our universe seems to me to be a masked belief in creationism and therefore God, while trying very hard to avoid such words.

The irony is that the thought experiment started with “pesky weird behaviours” that we can’t explain. Making the assumption that our “parent universe” is somehow easier to explain is really just wishful thinking that’s as rational as wishing a God to be responsible for it all.

I’ll be straight here: I’m a deist, I do think that given sufficient thought on these matters, we must ultimately admit there is a deity, a higher power that we cannot understand. We may as well call it God, because even though it’s not a religious idea of God, it is fundamentally beyond our capacity to understand. I just think simulation theory is a bit of a roundabout way to get there as there are easier ways to reach the same conclusion :)

It’s possible yes, but the nice thing is that we know we are not merely talking about “advanced people with vastly superior technology” here. The proof implies that technology within our own universe would never be able to simulate our own universe, no matter how advanced or superior.

So if our universe is a “simulation” at least it wouldn’t be an algorithmic one that fits our understanding. Indeed we still cannot rule out that our universe exists within another, but such a universe would need a higher order reality with truths that are fundamentally beyond our understanding. Sure, you could call it a “simulation” still, but if it doesn’t fit our understanding of a simulation it might as well be called “God” or “spirituality”, because the truth is, we wouldn’t understand a thing of it, and we might as well acknowledge that.