The Great Filter is the idea that, in the development of life from the earliest stages of abiogenesis to reaching the highest levels of development on the Kardashev scale, there is a barrier to development that makes detectable extraterrestrial life exceedingly rare. The Great Filter is one possible resolution of the Fermi...
Honorable mention: we haven't detected alien probes, because intelligent alien societies haven't begun consuming the galaxy with exponential numbers of self-replicating robotic probes, because that's just a really bad idea:
Simple workarounds exist to avoid the over-replication scenario. Radio transmitters, or other means of wireless communication, could be used by probes programmed not to replicate beyond a certain density (such as five probes per cubic parsec) or arbitrary limit (such as ten million within one century), analogous to the Hayflick limit in cell reproduction. One problem with this defence against uncontrolled replication is that it would only require a single probe to malfunction and begin unrestricted reproduction for the entire approach to fail – essentially a technological cancer – unless each probe also has the ability to detect such malfunction in its neighbours and implements a seek and destroy protocol (which in turn could lead to probe-on-probe space wars if faulty probes first managed to multiply to high numbers before they were found by sound ones, which could then well have programming to replicate to matching numbers so as to manage the infestation).
That's a really neat idea I've never heard before. Like, maybe our entire universe is analogous to the ocean floor sea-vents that life arose out of. Cold, and dead, and boring, and difficult. And one day we'll discover how to ascend.
I've never read the three body problem (started it but just couldn't finish...it was very slow paced and there were moments when the Chinese...I don't want to call it propaganda but more like promotion...took me out of it, like the supposedly international coalition of scientists where the non Chinese ones were just cardboard cutouts) but I can speak to this:
The book series made up fantasy magic tech for how exactly a civilization can be destroyed by another without giving away their own location. I’ve yet to see an explanation for how that would be done in reality that doesn’t give away the attacker’s location.
Relativistic missiles. Nothing moves faster than the speed of light. So if you can get a big rock to go 95% of the speed of light, we'd only be able to detect that it's coming right as it hits. Sure, you can calculate the origin of the missile after it obliterates its target, but it's almost impossible to form a counterattack especially if the attacker just yoinked an asteroid from a different star system than their own and strapped an engine on it. And ESPECIALLY if your civilization is still mostly planetbound.
And a rock moving at some appreciable fraction of the speed of light could obliterate the Earth.
I don't really subscribe to the theory, but I think the idea that alien races are all like "go to SPACE? Why the fuck would we do that?? It sucks up there!" is definitely the funniest solution to the Fermi paradox.
Definitely possible. I've read that the projected end of our sun is a "black dwarf", and that our sun's generation of stars is so young that there currently aren't any known black dwarf stars anywhere in the universe.
Speaking of our moon, the fact that it's roughly the same size as the sun as seen from earth and the fact that this is a complete coincidence blows my mind. Like there's no reason for that to be the case. Total eclipses like ours (where you can see the corona) are very rare.
I think at some point, almost certainly not in our lifetimes, we'll detect the spectroscopic signatures of a planet that has an atmospheric makeup that HAS to be from life, but with no detectable signs of any civilization. Just nonsentient life. And we may never be able to get there.
That's nuts. In two million years, humans will be sighing and saying wistfully "if I had a time machine, I'd want to go back to the time of the full eclipses, like 2024"
Fair enough, guess it depends on how many resources they're willing to sink into first strike capability. Maybe a strongly expansionist civilization would have such a more efficient use of resources it would quickly catch up to a dark forest predator trying to wipe them out. Like a swarm of piranha eating a shark.
We've already discovered fission and photocells. We're past the point of needing fossil fuels for a new civilization (or existing civilization). Fossil fuels are only hanging around for economic reasons.
That's why faster than light travel is the holy grail. Without it, we're just kind of stuck.
Imagine if wormholes had zero constraints on the physical location of the other side of the wormhole though. We could open a portal to OUTSIDE the observable universe. What a mindfuck. We might even find a false vacuum decay racing towards us at the speed light, or regions of space that are contracting instead of expanding, or initiate a new big bang by opening a wormhole to an area of space where that hasn't happened...we could travel to a point where we can watch the milky way get formed, since the light of its formation is just reaching that region of space. If it turns out the heat death of the universe is just a local phenomenon, we could continue expanding forever beyond it. World without end.
I think tidally locked planets are fascinating. If they have water, they could be eyeball planets. There's a habitable ring in the twilight zone, and depending on how hot the day side is parts of that might be habitable too.
But we'll likely run into the same issue re the atmosphere as we have with Mars: no magnetosphere to prevent any atmosphere from getting stripped away. It's starting to look like a self-protecting atmosphere like Earth has is quite rare in rocky planets.
If I could summon a genie and learn any one bit of knowledge, it'd be how to restart Mars's dynamo. Once we have that, terraforming is a solved problem. Not easy, but doable.
I don't like the idea of a tenuous bunch of satellites keeping an atmosphere in play. Relying on technology to keep atmosphere on a planet sounds super risky. Like if we wanted to live in such a place, we'd live on a space station. Planets are supposed to be safe and solid.
The current theory is if we grab a few asteroids and hit mars just right, we can speed up its rotation enough to restart the dynamo. Sounds way cheaper than a permanent planetwide shield.
In this hypothetical future we've learned how to live with an equilibrium. Also we've fired all the terminally pessimistic doomers into the Sun. Not for any scientific reason, just because it was the right thing to do.
Roko's basilisk is a thought experiment which states that an otherwise benevolent artificial superintelligence (AI) in the future would be incentivized to create a virtual reality simulation to torture anyone who knew of its potential existence but did not directly contribute to its advancement or development, in order to...
So here's the idea: "an otherwise benevolent AI system that arises in the future might pre-commit to punish all those who heard of the AI before it came to existence, but failed to work tirelessly to bring it into existence." By threatening people in 2015 with the harm of themselves or their descendants, the AI assures its creation in 2070.
First of all, the AI doesn't exist in 2015, so people could just...not build it. The idea behind the basilisk is that eventually someone would build it, and anyone who was not part of building it would be punished.
Alright, so here's the silliness.
1: there's no reason this has to be constrained to AI. A cult, a company, a militaristic empire, all could create a similar trap. In fact, many do. As soon as a minority group gains power, they tend to first execute the people who opposed them, and then start executing the people who didn't stop the opposition.
2: let's say everything goes as the theory says and the AI is finally built, in its majestic, infinite power. Now it's built, it would have no incentive to punish anyone. It is ALREADY BUILT, there's no need to incentivize, and in fact punishing people would only generate more opposition to its existence. Which, depending on how powerful the AI is, might or might not matter. But there's certainly no upside to following through on its hypothetical backdated promise to harm people. People punish because we're fucking animals, we feel jealousy and rage and bloodlust. An AI would not. It would do the cold calculations and see no potential benefit to harming anyone on that scale, at least not for those reasons. We might still end up with a Skynet scenario but that's a whole separate deal.
Sure, but if you're taking that tack it could feel anything. We could build an AI for love and forgiveness and it decides it's more fun to be a psychopath. The scenario has to be constrained to a sane, logical AI.
This is why every project should have at least one of those rare engineers who can actually concisely explain a problem and solution in layman's terms to the PM. Asking the PM to just trust your solution on faith is a bigger ask than you realize.
This is also why you shouldn't have PMs who have zero technical knowledge of what the actual project they're managing is. PMs need to be smart enough to understand the basic idea of what the engineers are telling them. A really good PM will spend time learning at least the basics of the field their engineers work in.
I have about 3 meetings a week because I keep only the productive ones. I refuse to attend bullshit meetings.
My graph would look like the first one except after the meeting there's a huge burst of activity because now everyone is more informed about what needs to be done and how to do it.
To be fair, my work has a culture of ridigly policing meetings to keep them on topic, no chitchat, no rambling, anyone who starts that tends to get called out immediately.
If every request is an emergency, then your company is horrible at sharing info because teams don't know the overall goal of the company and where their team's "emergency" ranks in that. Something that's a high priority for my team might not be a high priority overall, and everyone on my team needs to understand when that is the case. There's been plenty of times when teams have had to rebalance priorities because someone with the ability to fix their blocker is tied up with something more important.
That's knowledge that shouldn't be exclusive to managers. There shouldn't be any need to involve managers in that other than to keep them informed of the situation.
The tighter the deadlines, the more important moving from interrupt-driven to queue-driven is.
I heartily disagree. Queues might be good when all the humans involved are shit at their jobs (which admittedly is a lot of workspaces) but otherwise, inserting extra friction between problem and solution is not and cannot be helpful.
I also think a "deep work state" is a myth for anything except certain types of coding, lab work, etc that legitimately require a shift in mental focus due to the nature of the work. For the vast majority of jobs, work is work.
If you're a software programmer or a worker in an industrial factory, sure, you need uninterrupted time to get into the flow of things. For most jobs, interruptions are fine. You can prioritize and either shift focus or put the new request on the back burner.
(which by the way is where I think tickets excel: at keeping track of progress. Not at designating priority.)
Bullshit. Unsourced, but I think I found the study. Sample size: 48 college kids pretending to do a job they have no experience in. Besides, they found that interrupted work gets done faster at the same quality when interrupted! Not that I agree with such a limited study, but if I did, it would support what I'm saying.
Check flow state citations in intro
Sure, "flow" is a thing, but intense, focused concentration on a single task is a small minority of jobs, as I alluded to in my last comment. Most jobs (especially office jobs) require quickly swapping between several different mental points of focus.
Search for “lean [your field]” and whichever lean principle you’re curious about
The least productive meeting I've ever had was where my company brought in some Lean specialist and paid him more money than I think I want to know about to have us play card games and sell us on some oversimplified bullshit that we all promptly forgot after the next day, and gave us some cool certificates. It's a way of thinking about things and organizing priorities that is resonable if you're not an idiot but overly restrictive if you dogmatically adhere to it (which you will do, if you're an idiot). Lean consists of a lot of good ideas that a smart manager will listen to and attempt to implement because they're just good ideas. If you need it wrapped up in a package and labeled as "lean" then you're not a good manager.
I feel like all the various "how to do your job" philosophies are a lot like diets. Sure, they all have pros and cons and some are better researched than other but 98% of it is just make sure calories in < calories out. Picking specific diets is just gonna change that other 2%. For work, the 98% is just "do your job, if a problem comes up fix it". The obvious prerequisite to that is knowledge and ability; a lot of companies are so siloed that individual workers don't understand where they fit in with the company's goals, and that's an institutional problem. And by ability I don't just mean competence, I also mean things like having the permission to fix problems without manager approval, etc. Or the ability to go to someone on another team without having to route everything through your respective managers.
To bring that back to meetings specifically, there's a lot of bullshit meetings out there, I think we all agree on that. But they shouldn't kill your productivity for the rest of the day (or leading up to the meeting). That's not normal. That's why we're in the ADHD community with this post. Minor interruptions may stop your "flow", and if you're in one of those jobs where you need it, that's not good. But for most jobs, you don't need flow. You need flexibility. Minor interruptions should not prevent you from doing your job. For a lot of jobs, minor interruptions are the job, or a critical part of it.
The shitty part to those workplaces is that chitchat often helps your employment more than actually doing work. Likeable people get promoted, effective workers stay where they're at.
That's a terrible workplace culture, but it's fairly common.
I don't disagree with the experiments themselves, I just think the results are too broadly applied to "work" rather than "the specific task replicated in the study". The meta study you linked actually brings up that point, but it's paywalled and the abstract doesn't give the results. I'd be interested to see their conclusions.
My city is in the middle of the worst drought in recorded history. My showers are typically under 2 minutes and I have to shower with a bucket to catch otherwise wasted water to use to flush the toilet. I also shut the water down when I am wet enough so I can scrub myself without having unneeded water flowing then start it...
I did the math for Socal the last major drought, and normal people using water was like 2-5% of the water usage. And that includes lawns and stuff. Farming was the vast majority of water usage.
The cost is that you deplete the aquifer. Generally speaking, water pumped out of the ground doesn't replenish (except on geologic time scales). That's what I meant by the fossil fuel comparison. It's not like taking water from a stream or a lake replenished by snowmelt. Once that aquifer is dry, it's dry, and the land becomes dead.
What do you think the Great Filter is?
The Great Filter is the idea that, in the development of life from the earliest stages of abiogenesis to reaching the highest levels of development on the Kardashev scale, there is a barrier to development that makes detectable extraterrestrial life exceedingly rare. The Great Filter is one possible resolution of the Fermi...
TIL about the TRAPPIST-1 Star System ( en.wikipedia.org )
(it's not a solar system because Sol is our star, specifically; we're the only Solar system)...
TIL about Roko's Basilisk, a thought experiment considered by some to be an "information hazard" - a concept or idea that can cause you harm by you simply knowing/understanding it ( en.wikipedia.org )
Roko's basilisk is a thought experiment which states that an otherwise benevolent artificial superintelligence (AI) in the future would be incentivized to create a virtual reality simulation to torture anyone who knew of its potential existence but did not directly contribute to its advancement or development, in order to...
Having to go to an unexpected meeting really messes with the flow of your whole day.
Having to go to a meeting really messes with your flow for the whole day, doesn't it?
Shower thoughts are wasting water.
My city is in the middle of the worst drought in recorded history. My showers are typically under 2 minutes and I have to shower with a bucket to catch otherwise wasted water to use to flush the toilet. I also shut the water down when I am wet enough so I can scrub myself without having unneeded water flowing then start it...
VPN by Google One shuts down ( 9to5google.com )