This is a lie, so you are either repeating a lie from someone else or lying yourself.

The people you are talking about have not advocated mass murder via nuclear weapons. The idea was precisely targeted non-nuclear strikes against only the servers themselves. (Which, would have plenty of forewarning to allow people to leave the building.)

The claim that they advocated for the use of nuclear weapons is a lie.

I am speaking from direct personal experience: Yud's cult is inherently violent. By having defined their priorities as essential to the survival of any life on earth they have pre-justified taking any action 'necessary', no matter how cruel or extreme... even actions that they admit have only a small change of helping according to their own assessments because they've defined their doom as so unimaginably bad, effectively infinitely bad. (much worse than mass-extinction, in fact)

But you don't have to take my word for what the mentally ill AI doomer cult believes, you can take it from their leader when he called on states to "Make it explicit in international diplomacy that preventing AI extinction scenarios is considered a priority above preventing a full nuclear exchange, and that allied nuclear countries are willing to run some risk of nuclear exchange if that’s what it takes to reduce the risk of large AI training runs."

Don't make excuses for omnicidal authoritarian cults and their sadist leadership.

Here’s an easier criterion: “Do at least as good of a job at estimating what I probably want as an educated person would estimate, and do that, such that a reasonable human person who was aware of what I requested and of what you actually did, would conclude that as best as they can tell (without checking back with me), you did what I wanted.” .

This doesn’t seem like an unreasonable requirement to me. People do this all the time?

Sure, a request might not always be perfectly unambiguous. But people can generally estimate pretty well whether someone making a request is expecting the agent fulfilling the request to commit a crime in order to fulfill the request.

They presumably meant non-zero total momentum. If the total momentum were non-zero, then the center of mass will be moving in a straight line, and will not return to where it began, and therefore the orbit would not be periodic.

Big picture the center of mass momentum is concerned and it does not matter if the system as a whole is moving up or down or to the right or the left. Like the Earth is basically orbiting the sun in an ellipse [1] so far as the sun is concerned and from the viewpoint of the solar system not care so much that it is moving around the galaxy unless we are interested that orbit being perturbed by other stars that we pass near over millions and milions of years.

[1] ignoring the parameters of that ellipse changing slightly and slowly thanks to the other planets

Oh. That makes sense. Yes. The total momentum has to be zero.

All of the things in the solution can constantly have momentum.

What if the bombs were designed to kill everyone, not just those in some region? Like, to release polonium in the upper atmosphere or something?

There just aren't enough existing nuclear bombs to kill everyone in Australia, let alone the world. On the scale of the earth, nuclear weapons just aren't that powerful.

nuclear winter doesn’t discriminate based on region

There ought to be more to life than sitting in a pod receiving sufficient nutrients from a tube, even if there was no doubt that humanity would in this way survive until the sun expands and makes the earth uninhabitable.

> There ought to be more to life than sitting in a pod receiving sufficient nutrients from a tube

Even in a hypothetical world where AGI can do everything that humans do better, this would still be a choice to make, not an inevitable consequence for everyone.

And life doesn't require suffering to have meaning.

Huh? Why bring up suffering? I was responding to the question of “Why is it a problem if people don’t understand things?” .

I was saying that human pursuit of understanding of things provides value beyond survival and resources.

Joint pursuit of a common goal is a way for people to better be-in-relation-with one-another.

You can still pursue understanding of things, full automation doesn't preclude that.

What it does is make it a choice rather than a survival necessity. The latter is where the "suffering" comes from.

My experiences with the DMV have actually been pretty decent. I think a lot of their negative reputation is from how it used to be, but that they have improved substantially since then?

DMV is a state level agency and varies a lot depending on where you are. It's partially privatized here in Oklahoma and mostly painless (you only need the actual DMV for driver's tests, CDL background checks, etc.) but when I lived on the Illinois side of St. Louis I routinely heard of people spending hours in line.

Normally I'm not a huge fan of privatization but the way it's done here works great. The fees are set by the state and the agency gets a percentage, so if an area is underserved someone just opens another one.

Naturally, it varies by state. But yes, the Department of Licensing in WA state is also one of the least onerous bureaucracies I interact with

By "every particle" do you mean like, every type of particle?

If you mean individual particles, fundamental particles don't really have distinct individual identities (as shown by fermi and bose statistics).

As for types of particles: Well, photons surely move at the speed photons move at.

Special relativity is derived from the assumption/observation that light travels at the same speed in all inertial reference frames, and generally that the laws of physics work the same in any inertial reference frame.

What you are proposing sounds pretty vague and unclear to me, but, is what you are trying to say compatible with this?

It did. We are currently on the fourth or more reinvention of capitalism. It's like ethernet - every time networking technology changes, the new one is called the same thing as the old one. The current fiber-optic switched Ethernet has absolutely nothing in common with the original vampire-tapped coax with media attachment units clamped onto the cable and a serial-port-looking AUI interface running down from the ceiling to the computer. Same for capitalism.

Most of the time someone uses a urinal, they didn’t purchase it. The customer is different from the user in this case.

That's often true in software as well. Perhaps it's actually the etymology of the term.

Within a given inference system, one can define concepts. This doesn’t add any axioms. It is, in essence, just a way to abbreviate things.

ok, you now added some unknown inference system in addition to zfc

No, it is the same inference system. They are just abbreviations.

and what is that system?

ZFC

zfc is a bunch of axioms and not inference system. It is commonly assumed that it is built on top of some unspecified first order logic which commonly assumed to include bunch of inference rules. There is no ground truth in my understanding where this all is formally defined.

If you want to use “ZFC” to refer to the axioms without any rules of inference, I guess you can do that, but when someone refers to “ZFC” when they are filling a slot that needs a (axioms + rules of inference), the obvious interpretation is that they are referring to the usual system of ZFC.

> when someone refers to “ZFC” when they are filling a slot that needs a (axioms + rules of inference), the obvious interpretation is that they are referring to the usual system of ZFC.

its bro-math. In formal math you need to be specific what inference system you use. There are many of them. Then you need to have formal proof that in that system you can derive concept of function and then think about question if it won't make paradoxes and contradictions with ZFC.