Podcasts about efnet

Yanik goes over the past few weeks of turmoil at Xbox.Related LinksFU: Mastodon Blog: A new onboarding experience on MastodonFU: Daniel Lowe's thread on the formation of EFnet and how the Fediverse might follow suitFU: Apple: Apple brings Final Cut Pro and Logic Pro to iPadYouTube/Kinda Funny Games: Phil Spencer Interview: Redfall Reviews, Activision Deal - Kinda Funny Xcast Ep. 137Xbox Wire: Welcoming the Incredible Teams and Legendary Franchises of Activision Blizzard to Microsoft GamingFederal Trade Commission: FTC Seeks to Block Microsoft Corp.'s Acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Inc.The Verge: Microsoft's Activision Blizzard acquisition blocked by UK regulators

Andrew and Jason are joined by special guest Scotty J, Shortcuts specialist and co-host of the podcast Nested Folders! He shares his tech experience and boosts representation of the Northern Hemisphere! Meanwhile, Martin interrupts the conversation from afar with a weird collection of stories... Missing Man Formation 00:00:00 Two years of this show!?

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is Predictably Wrong, Part 12: The Lens That Sees Its Flaws, published by Eliezer Yudkowsky. Light leaves the Sun and strikes your shoelaces and bounces off; some photons enter the pupils of your eyes and strike your retina; the energy of the photons triggers neural impulses; the neural impulses are transmitted to the visual-processing areas of the brain; and there the optical information is processed and reconstructed into a 3D model that is recognized as an untied shoelace; and so you believe that your shoelaces are untied. Here is the secret of deliberate rationality—this whole process is not magic, and you can understand it. You can understand how you see your shoelaces. You can think about which sort of thinking processes will create beliefs which mirror reality, and which thinking processes will not. Mice can see, but they can't understand seeing. You can understand seeing, and because of that, you can do things that mice cannot do. Take a moment to marvel at this, for it is indeed marvelous. Mice see, but they don't know they have visual cortexes, so they can't correct for optical illusions. A mouse lives in a mental world that includes cats, holes, cheese and mousetraps—but not mouse brains. Their camera does not take pictures of its own lens. But we, as humans, can look at a seemingly bizarre image, and realize that part of what we're seeing is the lens itself. You don't always have to believe your own eyes, but you have to realize that you have eyes—you must have distinct mental buckets for the map and the territory, for the senses and reality. Lest you think this a trivial ability, remember how rare it is in the animal kingdom. The whole idea of Science is, simply, reflective reasoning about a more reliable process for making the contents of your mind mirror the contents of the world. It is the sort of thing mice would never invent. Pondering this business of “performing replicable experiments to falsify theories,” we can see why it works. Science is not a separate magisterium, far away from real life and the understanding of ordinary mortals. Science is not something that only applies to the inside of laboratories. Science, itself, is an understandable process-in-the-world that correlates brains with reality. Science makes sense, when you think about it. But mice can't think about thinking, which is why they don't have Science. One should not overlook the wonder of this—or the potential power it bestows on us as individuals, not just scientific societies. Admittedly, understanding the engine of thought may be a little more complicated than understanding a steam engine—but it is not a fundamentally different task. Once upon a time, I went to EFNet's #philosophy chatroom to ask, “Do you believe a nuclear war will occur in the next 20 years? If no, why not?” One person who answered the question said he didn't expect a nuclear war for 100 years, because “All of the players involved in decisions regarding nuclear war are not interested right now.” “But why extend that out for 100 years?” I asked. “Pure hope,” was his reply. Reflecting on this whole thought process, we can see why the thought of nuclear war makes the person unhappy, and we can see how his brain therefore rejects the belief. But if you imagine a billion worlds—Everett branches, or Tegmark duplicates1—this thought process will not systematically correlate optimists to branches in which no nuclear war occurs.2 To ask which beliefs make you happy is to turn inward, not outward—it tells you something about yourself, but it is not evidence entangled with the environment. I have nothing against happiness, but it should follow from your picture of the world, rather than tampering with the mental paintbrushes. If you can see this—if you can see that hope is shifting your first-order thoughts by too large a ...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is Predictably Wrong, Part 12: The Lens That Sees Its Flaws, published by Eliezer Yudkowsky. Light leaves the Sun and strikes your shoelaces and bounces off; some photons enter the pupils of your eyes and strike your retina; the energy of the photons triggers neural impulses; the neural impulses are transmitted to the visual-processing areas of the brain; and there the optical information is processed and reconstructed into a 3D model that is recognized as an untied shoelace; and so you believe that your shoelaces are untied. Here is the secret of deliberate rationality—this whole process is not magic, and you can understand it. You can understand how you see your shoelaces. You can think about which sort of thinking processes will create beliefs which mirror reality, and which thinking processes will not. Mice can see, but they can't understand seeing. You can understand seeing, and because of that, you can do things that mice cannot do. Take a moment to marvel at this, for it is indeed marvelous. Mice see, but they don't know they have visual cortexes, so they can't correct for optical illusions. A mouse lives in a mental world that includes cats, holes, cheese and mousetraps—but not mouse brains. Their camera does not take pictures of its own lens. But we, as humans, can look at a seemingly bizarre image, and realize that part of what we're seeing is the lens itself. You don't always have to believe your own eyes, but you have to realize that you have eyes—you must have distinct mental buckets for the map and the territory, for the senses and reality. Lest you think this a trivial ability, remember how rare it is in the animal kingdom. The whole idea of Science is, simply, reflective reasoning about a more reliable process for making the contents of your mind mirror the contents of the world. It is the sort of thing mice would never invent. Pondering this business of “performing replicable experiments to falsify theories,” we can see why it works. Science is not a separate magisterium, far away from real life and the understanding of ordinary mortals. Science is not something that only applies to the inside of laboratories. Science, itself, is an understandable process-in-the-world that correlates brains with reality. Science makes sense, when you think about it. But mice can't think about thinking, which is why they don't have Science. One should not overlook the wonder of this—or the potential power it bestows on us as individuals, not just scientific societies. Admittedly, understanding the engine of thought may be a little more complicated than understanding a steam engine—but it is not a fundamentally different task. Once upon a time, I went to EFNet's #philosophy chatroom to ask, “Do you believe a nuclear war will occur in the next 20 years? If no, why not?” One person who answered the question said he didn't expect a nuclear war for 100 years, because “All of the players involved in decisions regarding nuclear war are not interested right now.” “But why extend that out for 100 years?” I asked. “Pure hope,” was his reply. Reflecting on this whole thought process, we can see why the thought of nuclear war makes the person unhappy, and we can see how his brain therefore rejects the belief. But if you imagine a billion worlds—Everett branches, or Tegmark duplicates1—this thought process will not systematically correlate optimists to branches in which no nuclear war occurs.2 To ask which beliefs make you happy is to turn inward, not outward—it tells you something about yourself, but it is not evidence entangled with the environment. I have nothing against happiness, but it should follow from your picture of the world, rather than tampering with the mental paintbrushes. If you can see this—if you can see that hope is shifting your first-order thoughts by too large a ...

In these trying times, we thought a nostalgic little walk down memory lane might be nice. Join us as we look back at the '90s Internet, from PPP connections and .plan files to Gopher, IRC, and Will's part in the Eternal September.Support the Pod! Contribute to the Tech Pod Patreon and get access to our booming Discord, your name in the credits, and other great benefits! You can support the show at: https://patreon.com/techpodHere's the microsuction stuff Will mentions in the intro: https://www.amazon.com/Sewell-Direct-AirStick-Microsuction-250mmx300mm/dp/B00ITX9OU2/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&linkCode=sl1&tag=notthatwill0d-20&linkId=4f0530f913b3084c875bb01bf3140f20&language=en_USDust off your telnet client and let's all play Legend of the Red Dragon: https://lord.stabs.org/

Slides here: https://defcon.org/images/defcon-22/dc-22-presentations/Larsen-Vedaa/DEFCON-22-Mike-Larsen-Charlie-Vedaa-Impostor-Polluting-Tor-Metadata.pdf Impostor — Polluting Tor Metadata Charlie Vedaa Mike Larsen Just using Tor can bring the cops to your door. While the security community was busy scolding the Harvard bomb threat kid for his poor OPSEC, this ugly revelation was largely ignored. Malware authors are doing their part to remedy the situation; by adding thousands of infected hosts to the Tor network, they're making Tor traffic more common, and making dragnet investigation techniques less viable. But the hackers need to step up and help too. By taking advantage of weak detection techniques in security tools, fake Tor traffic can be injected with some simple JavaScript. We'll show how easy it is to fool open source monitoring tools, and present a variety of options for testing your closed source gear. In this fast-paced talk we'll cover how Tor traffic is detected, how false positives can be generated, and how you can help fight for anonymity on the Internet. Charlie Vedaa, CCIE #7502, is a fork and spoon operator for the US government. He's living proof that they'll let anyone speak at DEF CON, BSidesLV, Notacon, and HOPE. Twitter: @charlievedaa Mike Larsen is the world's dopest application security consultant. He's a Don Juan, lover, Lothario, straight up out the EFNET barrio.

Folge 15 der Datenschorle vom Sonntag, 29. April 2012 Mit @toastroom, @swoop_hcm, @bestform und @kelloggsfrost Shownotes: Gnocchi Nockenwelle Steingarten irc nickserv/chanserv freenode EFnet irssi colloquy xchat xchat aqua linkinus mirc alberner helge thx alpecinbot proligde mate IKEA TV YPS shut up and take my money GPS Restrictions on civilian use Bits und so #117 (GPS) LASER Abstruse Goose […]

The votes are in! Remix64.com has been taking your votes for various categories including the one that the initials come from - Remixer of the Year. Join your hosts, Boz and Slaygon of SLAY Radio, with a round-up of the year's events followed by the awards ceremony itself. Join #remix64 on EFNet to participate in the chat.

CONTENT ADVISORY: some bad words contained herein. "KLB" is a song I wrote about the #perl IRC channel on EFNet, years ago. Props to nocarrier and Schwern. Requested by jeek.