Its a definition, but not an effective one in the sense that we can test and recognize it. Can we list all cognitive tasks a human can do? To avoid testing a probably infinite list, we should instead understand what are the basic cognitive abilities of humans that compose all other cognitive abilities we have, if thats even possible. Like the equivalent of a turing machine, but for human cognition. The Turing machine is based on a finite list of mechanisms and it is considered as the ultimate computer (in the classical sense of computing, but with potentially infinite memory). But we know too little about whether the limits of the turing machine are also limits of human cognition.
it is a rather bad example. it is implied that the strings we want to find in pi must be written with the characters of the numerical system. So if we write pi in base 2 we should ask whether all binary strings can be found. If we write pi in base 10 we shouldnt be asking if we can find the character "a" somewhere in there.
its been proven for some other numbers, but not yet for pi.
it may be an honest question, but surely a stoopid question.
I don't understand your second paragraph and how it relates to what I said.
What about what I said depends on stepping outside space and time?
Do you think I meant that an automata could copy me? thats not really what i was talking about.
saying somethins is being sabotaged isnt the same as saying it is failing. The sabotage must be successful for it to fail.
there isnt so much incentive. No advertisement. Upvote counters behave weirdly in the fediverse (from what i can see).
just to nitpick, they said the "poorest", not the poor in general. The poorest are the most vulnerable, and, I suppose, not absolutely crucial for the ruling class.
It seems weird to me that the null-hypothesis there should be that dogs are non-sapient. It seems to be common for scientists to default on non-existence until evidence of existence is found. But in some situations existence and non-existence should have equivalent weights. In the field of mathematics, the existence of a thing can be logically equivalent to the non-existence of another thing, and we dont know which of the two exists, but we cant default to assuming neither of the two. Science is a bit different from pure mathematics though, but im not sure in what ways.
This is exactly what puzzles me. Or at least you seem to be talking about what puzzles me. The problem is that when I mention this to others, most missunderstand what I mean by "being aware" or "conscious", and im not sure its possible to refer to this phenomena in a much better way. But that is exactly the argument i usually make, that an automata could behave exactly like me, following the supposed physical laws, but without being aware, or having any sensation, without seeing the images, hearing the sounds, only processing sensorial data. Processing sensorial data isnt the same as feeling/hearing/seeing it.
I feel like dogs tend to to give us the benefit of the doubt about everything, never jump to thinking we're crazy.
Revenue and market cap are two different things. The 2 trillion you mentioned is market cap, not revenue, much less it is profit.
I agree it would be a prettier picture if companies paid their workers fairly. But the companies would grow differently. Maybe they would grow better, but differently and more distributed. Comparing absolute values between our world and this dreamland seems silly though.
And I hope that in a world where we are paid fairly we would produce less crap, pollute less. Workers wouldnt be desperately making bad/useless products in order to just survive. A smaller gdp could be a good thing.
If they had to pay them that much, they would have never hired most of them.
exactly. A company tant doesnt overexplore its workers cannot grow like alphabet did. The underpayment of the workers is an essential feature of alphabet, and part of what makes its market capitalization that high.
This implies that the answer to my question is "no": if the workers had been paid properly from the start, there wouldnt be the discrepancy that makes the founder billionaires.
dont blame me for the opinions of someone else. Just note how hipocritical you sound by dismissing criticism of the us while criticizing russia. Why not both?
Would that market cap be so high if all those employees were paid that extra million yearly? Market caps depend on more than the actual value of the company's product to society.
No, thats not what im saying.
Just that if everyone involved in the process of making something was paid fairly, there wouldnt be enough money to make the end node billionaire.