To say it's unhappy is not quite right, it's problem solving and running simulations whose goal is naturally and properly a source of low level anxiety - how to secure this organisms future well being.
That wandering mind is conducting probability analysis on potential future events and circumstances or the same calculation on the actual nature of past events. It is trying to secure its future security, to form an ugly phrase.
That's what this organism does with its mind. It runs simulations to try to predict the future in an if this, then that sort of way. That's its natural state. Seems harsh to call that "unhappy".
Productive reasoning, the kind of mental activity we are proud of and covet, in this context, is really less like thinking and more like acting, like engaging in affirmative, directed action.
No organism can sustain a high level of anxiety. We're talking about the purpose of the universal default state of mind. It can't be a state of high anxiety.
I don't know about the blanking out part, but the rest of the description sounds like a regular human being. That intense daydreaming is, while not everyone's state, pretty typical of people generally. People with powerful brains just experience things intensely or deeply, including their own reverie. You should harness some of that horsepower.
It's called reverie. The stream of thinking that you naturally have when you're not deliberately trying to focus.
Essentially, one thought leading to another which leads to another and so on, without you having to make any effort.
Most people identify so much with their thinking, they aren't aware of it as a "thing"; it feels like it's something you're doing.
What are you thinking about?
But if you try to just pay attention, say to your breath, going in and out, after a few seconds you'll discover you slipped back into thinking, as described above, back into reverie.
Continued failure, despite your increasing resolve, to stay just listening to your breath reveals this fact: you can't stop "your" thinking mind from recapturing your attention.
So it seems like a monkey, that is, a thing which jumps around, from thought to thought, a separate entity from you, one which will not obey you.
Your body requires nutrients to function. Deliberately depriving your cells of those nutrients can't possibly be good for them and likely does them harm. You evolved to survive such catastrophes of course, but the key word is "survive".
What states of mind can be induced by fasting is a separate consideration, it seems to me.
I don't think deprivation is the right model. Cells are still getting nutrients, just from different sources, particularly fat. Animals have 500 millions of years of evolutionary experience using this energy source.
I would be more concerned about the harm caused by not using this metabolic pathway, at least occasionally.
Fat itself is a nutrient [1], providing one of the most important bodily requirements of energy. The body requires other nutrients as well, and has methods of storing them. Fasting does not mean going without them. The nutrients of most interest to fasting are probably essential amino acids which can not be synthesized and ionic electrolytes.
Free protein and amino acids only last a couple days in the body before being used for muscle or being irreversibly converted to fat. When necessary, the body can break down muscle to obtain essential amino acids.
The relevant electrolytes the body needs are sodium, potassium, and magnesium, which it maintains fairly deep stores of in the bones.
It appears the prosecutor believes the defendant should have, or did, know(n) that ai generated music cannot be copyrighted. The defense has to be he tweaked the output in some creative way where creative is defined very broadly.
I don’t know, are these vids kept on an SD card or otherwise accessible via Tesla corp.? Why doesn't this same principle apply to home cams, where the cops have to ask permission for the footage?Seems like an obvious question. Tesla codes for Musk and Musk now codes right, so if you're being honest you have to at least entertain the idea this is meant to decrease the cost benefit analysis of owning a Tesla.
> To protect your privacy, video recordings are saved locally to a formatted USB flash drive's onboard memory. Recordings are not sent to Tesla. Model 3 does not record videos when Dashcam is Off.
This. Knowledge can't be made illegal. Neither can speech. People have to grasp that tyranny is not an aberration of defective minds but a natural impulse of highly intelligent people. It's strategy to maximize their power, prosperity and security at the expense of every other value and every other person. Good for them while they live and bad for everyone else at every other time frame.
Another perspective of the same event. Had to read 1/2 through OP article to get at their argument - Otelli was innovative, but the deal made no sense for Intel.
I found this article broader and more thought provoking.
In the U.S., it's definitely illegal to listen in in any environment where there's an expectation of privacy.
Disney recently argued that its TOS for a Disney Channel free trial subscription could be used to force the husband of a woman who died from anaphylactic shock after her allergy diet requirements were mocked and disregarded by staff at a Disney restaurant because he signed it and it included a forced arbitration clause.
So, if you've given apps permission to use your mic, their lawyers may be telling them it's legal to use them at any time for any purpose.
For a contract to be binding, there is supposed to be a meeting of the minds, a shared understanding between the parties of what is being agreed to. Their argument is you signed the 50 page contract, so you knew.
If that doesn't sound right to you, talk to your congress person.
I've seen a few recent videos out of the UK that made my blood boil. Police visits to your home because of mean posts, and then off to jail in handcuffs. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Those “mean posts” were people organising violent riots that cost the country millions and targeted small business owners just for being ethnic minorities.
People shouldn’t get a free pass on organising violence and riots just because they did it online.
Edit: I don’t normally comment on the peer moderation that happens on HN but wow there are a lot of people online today that believe free speech trumps all other laws.
Seems it’s ok to destroy people’s property just so long as you arrange to do it online. /s
Perhaps someone can explain why they think this way?
I'm a little hesitant to comment because I haven't been able to dig up the actual charges, but there is a history of people in the UK being charged and arrested for mean posts. A few storys jumped out at me, eg the Kelly case did seem at the time to be a betrayal of the liberal tradition assuming the BBCs reporting is accurate - realistically people should be able to gratuitously insult people who contributed of the largest imperial project in history as military officers. For all that it was in terrible taste.
It’s hard to comment on that case without knowing what was Tweeted but on the surface of it, I do agree with you. However he wasn’t sent to jail and thus it wasn’t the incident the GP described.
What the GP was referring to was those jailed for inciting violence and hatred during the wave of riots the UK suffered last month.
Their actions were a lot worse and had real world, tangible, effects on people and their property. It wasn’t just them sharing a meme (which is the popular trope some on HN describe the event as).
It’s worth noting that people in America get arrested for similar actions. In another comment I drew parallels to the Capitol riots.
The crux of the reason people get put in jail “for posting mean things” is because they’ve broken other, much worse laws in the process.
Then perhaps you can share what other recent cases there have been of people jailed for posting stuff online.
And please don’t call me a liar. You said it was recent, and they were jailed. I don’t know of anything else besides the incidents I’ve covered. Worst case is I’m misinformed. And if that’s the case then I’m sorry. But I assure you that I’m not a liar.
Oh I’m well aware of how strict the uk is. However none of those articles you shared are about people getting jail time (most of those cases were likely dropped in fact) and they certainly weren’t recent.
I’m not making generalisations here. The OP made a very specific statement about people being jailed recently for posting online and I’m saying they’ve completely missed the truth behind those actual arrests.
Just as all the subsequent posts yourself and others have made are glossing over the very specific claims the OP made.
I’m not going to argue that I think the UK gets things right with its approach to online content. But the OPs specific claim of people being arrested is missing the bigger story about why they got arrested. And that’s what I’m specifically calling FUD on — not the UKs wider policy. The uk is a shit show for a great many reasons (as a UK citizen I’m not blind to this at all). But that doesn’t mean we should exaggerate the truth for the sake of gaining a little extra karma on HN.
The simple fact is the reason for the recent arrests and jail time is for similar reasons people have been arrested and jailed for online content in the US (yes, it’s happened there too). This isn’t a problem with free speech, it’s actual criminals causing actual physical damage and thus who have broken other laws besides just communicating about it online. Hence my comparison to the Capitol riots.
If you're trying to be precise about specific meaning, you probably should also be specific about only using the word jailed. You use "arrested" a few times there, and people do seem to be being arrested for mean tweets.
People were arrested in America over the Capitol riots and messages online was used as part of the evidence.
What happened in the UK was exactly the same. We had violence and riots, millions of pounds of damages, innocent small business owners targeted because of their ethnicity. It was actually a much worse scale than the Capitol riots and thus people should absolutely be held accountable for their actions.
>Yes, USA is indeed the only country on the planet with absolute free speech. Most residents of other places doesn't actually want what the USA has.
The US does not have absolute free speech. Laws exist against slander, libel, perjury and making terroristic threats. The FDA regulates the speech of food producers and pharmaceutical companies. The FCC regulates speech on broadcast television and radio. It's a felony to lie to Congress. It's a felony to call for the assassination of the President.
Even speech in "public squares" is regulated by public nuisance and noise laws and curfews.
Yes, what's considered "hate speech" elsewhere is (mostly) legal in the US. But that doesn't make free speech in the US absolute, just more amenable to forms of racism and bigotry the rest of the world decided weren't worth defending after the consequences of World War 2.
Free speech should not be an absolute. No freedom in a society is absolute. Living in a society is a huge compromise.
EDIT: I am not in favor of the Chat Control proposal by the way. It is poorly thought out and will only serve to harm innocent people. True criminals will use encryption and such anyway.
It’s the only place that ever had it, if imperfectly. Everyone else pretends they have it, but it’s a joke. Everywhere else has these red lines they will simply pretend do not count as valid speech.
- In China you can say anything you want! (of course you can’t criticize Xi or though, that would be ridiculous)
- in the UK you can say anything you want! (of course you can’t say anything untoward about anyone, that would be ridiculous)
- in Denmark you can say anything you want! (of course you can’t say anything that would offend religious sensibilities — this is real by the way, Denmark has reinstated blasphemy laws as of 2023)
There's not a single place on earth that "has" free speech, it's all shades of gray.
The US government will have you jailed, tortured, or just ruin your life in other innovative ways if you dare expose their crimes, e.g. Snowden, Assange.
- "Is the US the only place on the planet that actually has free speech?"
I'm not aware of any other country with stronger protections, on the topic of the thing going on in the UK, of heated and violent rhetoric than the US has. US jurisprudence explicitly protects advocacy of violence and lawbreaking (up to the Brandenburg test is a very high bar), and I don't know if there's any other country with comparable protections.
(By which I specifically don't mean "has 'freedom of speech'" written on paper somewhere; nor "doesn't typically hassle people over tweets (but has legal options to do so should they choose)". I mean binding case law that weighs quasi-incitement to violence against the right to hyperbolic political rhetoric, and deliberately chooses the latter).
If people in Switzerland wanted that they could vote for it. But they actually prefer having limits on other peoples' speech more than they resent the limits on their own, so they don't.
Depends on what you publish.... if you just yell about different random people, sure... if you post a video of war crimes, well.. that's a different story now.
There’s also a bunch of stuff that falls under free speech most people don’t realize (at least in the US): what you can or can refuse put in your body, what you can refuse to say, how you spend your money, what you can hear, where you can read/write/speak/listen, etc
All of which has been being curtailed substantially in many ways since the 80s in the United States.
The US does not have free speech. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/us/pro-palestinian-... I’m not suggesting the UK is better, btw, just rather that free speech already doesn’t exist anywhere. Some of these you can criticize because they aren’t public universities, and perhaps that’s fair, and the rest you can criticize because they weren’t arrested for protesting, but rather having “illegal encampments”, but a rose by any other name is still a rose.
free speech is often not something one “enjoys”. If you are at a funeral and have protesters burning pictures of your dead child then you aren’t “enjoying” that.
Howver the US does not have free speech. It has some speech which is not allowed by law, some which is allowed in theory but not in practice, and some which is allowed completely.
That wandering mind is conducting probability analysis on potential future events and circumstances or the same calculation on the actual nature of past events. It is trying to secure its future security, to form an ugly phrase.
That's what this organism does with its mind. It runs simulations to try to predict the future in an if this, then that sort of way. That's its natural state. Seems harsh to call that "unhappy".
Productive reasoning, the kind of mental activity we are proud of and covet, in this context, is really less like thinking and more like acting, like engaging in affirmative, directed action.