Is it objectively more fun? If you actually ask yourself if you're used to it, you could list the positives and negatives of both games and compare, maybe it could open your eyes (or confirm your suspicion)
> Recent data suggest that individuals that come to the disease from this particular cause have a significant survival advantage,[20] as the disease responds better to radiation treatments than tobacco caused disease.
It does seem indeed that there is more prevalence of laryngeal cancer due to HPV however according to that link above, it should not worsen survival rates but rather make them better, wouldn't it?
You just need to venture in the realms of Black Metal to find negative songs in a serious way. Try any DSBM song, such as Psychonaut4, Lifelover and others.
Then all the nationalist black metal which preaches ... well very aggressive ideas sometimes. This is of course a fringe but it exists.
Yeah, French band called Peste Noire have an album called: 'La Sanie des siècles – Panégyrique de la dégénérescence'. IMO it's some of the most evil black metal I've come across. Guy behind the band has views that I do not agree with at all, but I enjoy his music.
That's a fantastic album. I can't really understand the lyrics to most black metal songs, even if they speak English, so I always listen to them as if it were classical music or a video game soundtrack, and just enjoy the highs and lows.
Two albums I really enjoy in this vein are 'Geliebte Des Regens' by Nargaroth and 'Telepathic with the Deceased' by Xasthur. Both are pretty bleak and depressing subject matter wise but I find them enjoyable to listen to.
Perhaps you're right. I'd never ventured into black/norwegian metal other than maybe classic Cradle of filth or Dimmu Borgir. But even those felt goody and sort of like an act to me. I'll give those a listen, thanks.
I can definitely recommend bands like Lifelover, Psychonaut4, Totalselfhatred, Alcest, Lantlos, Bonjour Tristesse, Drawn into Descent if you want to experience some not-so-happy metal
Never thought I would see these bands mentioned on HN. Would have even missed a heartbeat to see Thergothon or Skepti but Mordor is an absolute total surprise. Cheers, good fellow!
Varg is a murderer—he does claim self-defense, and that his victim, also an obsessive black metal creator, meant to murder HIM—and an arsonist, and politically outrageous. He meant and means every bit of it, and would earnestly explain to you that (for instance) the arson is church burnings, and that the Christian Church has executed a pogrom of his ancient Viking culture, using the most ruthless methods.
As he's talking about things like the Inquisition and the obliteration of pagan cultures, he's not wrong about some of his history.
It's a pretty unusual pagan who gets as murderous as Varg about historical injustices, though.
You have a valid point but you are using misleading data: Don't compare a RCE + SBX vs a RCE w/o SBX.
Firefox RCE + SBX is 80k, edge is 100k, safari is also 80k.
Another thing to take in consideration is the number of people that the exploit could be used against. For example, following this: http://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/world..., Chrome would have almost 68% of the browsing share whereas Firefox is only close to 10% and all the others even less. It'd be surprising this isn't taken account by Zerodium in their price calculations!
You're correct -- I was referring to the table that was easiest to quickly reference which is the changelog, not ALL current prices. The periodic table is more accurate. I'll update my post.
It's not exactly cured: "Could slow progress". But of course there is a huge difference between having chances to die 10 years after onset of disease and 30 years! Especially since it appears to start in later life
My family tends to live 25-30 years after onset of symptoms because we have fewer CAG repeats than most HD families. So this may be effectively the same as a cure for us.
Are you speaking of the person being treated for his Hunter Syndrome via Gene-editing treatment (I think it was done this week)? It doesn't use Crispr but another tool named ZFN . Pretty exciting that we're not only trying those out in vivo but also in fully grown patients with a specific disorder!
Imagine a world in which Xi, Kim Jong *, and a host of other wealthy dictators were immortal, and the rest of us pee-ons were not. I believe that is the future of high tech immortality.
All medical advancements that enhance or prolong life get to be used first by wealthy individuals. Eventually, they reduce in price and reach more people.
Just because only a few people could afford a CT scan when it first came out doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep developing it for the wife benefits we will see in the future.
Mind backups do nothing for me. Imagine if your airplane ran out of fuel over the ocean. You're going to crash and die, so you get on the radio, and air traffic control says "don't worry, your estate already restored a backup of your mind into a cloned body. just go ahead and plow into the water at full speed, the new you is already awake and seems happy and comfortable."
Would you think "whew, I really dodged a bullet there", or would you think "fuck that clone, I don't want to die!" ?
I can't grasp this view point. A clone with a "mind upload" is more like a twin. You'll still die and will not exist anymore to see what you're clone/twin does.
wow. so you're perfectly at peace with death if someone convincingly tells you that your family won't be able to tell the difference between the old you and your clone?
I think we'll see anti-aging treatments before that happens, so yes, a shot in the face would probably be effective until the singularity comes. Then a shot in the face will become some powershell script.
hm... but wouldn't they still fear death-experience? also, mind-on-usb != my-mind imho... (it could be a ctrl-c,v of my mind, but can be said as someone else with my thoughts?)
I've been thinking about this lately too, it almost feels like we're here already.
I often read stories about innocent younger people dying from something tragic; However, why do I almost never wake up to, "<evil tyrannical dictator> has unexpectedly and peacefully passed away in their sleep?"
I don't think immortal is the right word here. You can still die from physical harm, no matter how many stem cells you consume. So in theory if someone abused the pee-ons for enough time, probably one of them would get mad enough to overthrow the power. Just like many revolutions throughout history.
Most dynasties in history were overthrown by competing heirs, not the people. It is actually very rare for dictatorships to turn into democracies. Many reigns only end in death. Do you think Putin will ever be overthrown?
It is actually very rare for dictatorships to turn into democracies.
In the last half century give or take some years, half of Europe and Latin America nations have successfully and peacefully made this transition. And only Venezuela has returned to dictatorship.
Do you think Putin will ever be overthrown?
No idea. Formal democracy is still in place, so there's hope.
Universal suffrage is as recent as 1906, and only for male voters was introduced in American and French revolutions. So with some back and forth, (modern, real) democracy has been steadly advancing since it was born two centuries ago, with a much clearer trend last half century.
No, because he:
a) has a very high approval rating,
b) minimized a lot of corruption problems for Russia where people were stealing absolutely everywhere after the soviet collapse
c) does not commit humanitarian crimes
I'm not involved in any way, but from the news I watch, both a) and c) claims are debatable. I guess he's not worse than what he replaced, but that doesn't make him good. At least that's the spin in the media in my country, possibly very biased for a lot of reasons.
nah, I’m imagining a different world. I get bored with always imagining the world where “only the rich...”.
At any rate, very few people are actually working on “immortality”. Most of us squander our time bullshitting on the Internet. There’s little danger of solving immortality for several generations.
A better way to put is that, without death we wouldn't have progressed as a race as much as we have done. We need new people with fresh ideas to come to top, take higher roles and make radical decisions. People living longer will stay in power longer and keep the status quo alive. In a longer stretch, conservationism, which grows like age, is an impediment for innovation and progress, IMHO.
If we were immortal, the birth rate would decline as people worried less about continuing through progeny and more about continuing through their own lives.
How many wars do you think anyone would want to fight if we didn't have an endless streams of the young who are willing to die on the battlefield?
How many murders are committed by people over 30 vs under? How many people die in car accidents after 30?
There's something to be said for having a world dominated by people who are mature and understand the value of their own lives.
>How many wars do you think anyone would want to fight if we didn't have an endless streams of the young who are willing to die on the battlefield?
We've got killer robots for that now.
>How many murders are committed by people over 30 vs under?
I'd guess the majority of murders have been caused by people over 30 declaring war.
>How many people die in car accidents after 30?
Self-driving cars sounds like a good solution
>There's something to be said for having a world dominated by people who are mature and understand the value of their own lives.
Yes, of course the elderly possess great wisdom, but they are also highly inflexible when it comes to thinking of new solutions to new problems. The imaginative power of the child is something highly undervalued and suppressed in our society.
I'd guess the majority of murders have been caused by people over 30 declaring war.
Well, since US elected national office is pretty much 30 and over, that's the only way wars can be declared.
But there's a reason why there's the movie cliche of the old cautious king being toppled by the young warmonger. On average, young people are a lot more prone to violence. Put them in charge of a nation, and I have no doubt that wars would increase rather than decrease.
Yes, of course the elderly possess great wisdom, but they are also highly inflexible when it comes to thinking of new solutions to new problems.
But a lot of that is because your gray matter doesn't work as well as you become elderly. If that weren't the case, we could have young energetic minds that also are wise dominate in society.
What about the habitual thought patterns and prejudices that have been "hard wired" from the life experiences of the elderly, which make it so difficult to think outside the box?
If rejuvenation techniques keep the brain's neuroplasticity youthful, then those hard-wired experiences should be no worse than those of younger people.
Would a hard wired prejudice include being fundamentally biased against old people?
I think that this topic went from next year's stem cell therapy to "What if you could live forever" territory from the top comment way up there.
Within the context of the pie-in-the-sky subject we're discussing, calling for citations seems kind of pointless. We're all just speculating and talking about what-ifs.
I suppose my main concern is that if learned prejudices (against race, religion, ideology, age, economic status, etc.) cannot be eliminated by regenerating brain matter, then a potentially fatal error could arise for society since some prejudices can be virtually insurmountable for many humans. Such an error is often solved naturally when the leaders of the previous age die out.
Just like when a computer system has become corrupted or broken, turning it off and on again can be the most simple and effective solution, so can death and rebirth be an effective solution for when our collective mental processes become corrupted.
> If we were immortal, the birth rate would decline
Would it? In modern, low reproduction societies the dominant interpretation of the universal "honour thy father and thy mother" focuses on care. Even the slightest resemblance to a chain of command that might be present earlier stops at adulthood. But with people forever overshadowed by their undying ancestors, we might see a massive resurgence of the competing interpretation which sees it as a natural power structure. If that happens, well, welcome to pyramid scheme hell.
I'm not sure about this argument. You could manage the issue in other ways eg enforced fixed terms for jobs.
Also, it's difficult to predict how immortality would affect human psychology, let alone how the technology would work. Perhaps we will be able to 'freeze' someone in their mid to late twenties, at some optimal point of physical health, maturity and risk taking behaviour.
I personally don't think we can take the very old and keep them alive forever. This will almost certainly result in a permanently sick state requiring constant therapy to maintain. The chance of getting cancer will approach unity at some point. Not exactly the ideal of immortal youth.
could you consider the notion, that all the progress and innovation impediments you link to age-related conservatism are actually at least partly related to the disease of aging itself? how would that change your opinion?
Only partly agree. Even adults are very conservative. A bunch of forever-40 wouldn't work very well. Luckily this can be fixed. Experimental brain plasticity drugs also increases forgetfulness, which is what we really want. Knowing the old ways of doing things means that new ways won't be explored.
i think there is a subtle difference between being conservative and being experienced.
experience gives, sometimes false, impression of knowing with some degree of certainty that a certain direction is wrong or won't yield results. young people don't have that bias.
conservatism is instead aversion to even agree with the results themselves if they don't conform with one's worldview.
This sounds like darwinism. Evolution is a law of nature, not a law of society.
What you say is true for species that don't have language or civilization. But since humans have technology, evolution happens in our minds, not in our DNA.
And new ideas don't necessarily require new people.
> radical decisions
Like what?
> People living longer will stay in power longer and keep the status quo alive.
> Like what?
Take any norm breaking innovation in the pass 2000 years. Any idea that sounded arcane at its time: Earth is not Flat, its not the center of universe, light is a wave and a particle, etc. Perhaps decision was not the correct word to use, "ideas" would be better.
> What kind of prediction is that?
A prediction like any other. I think we tend to become risk averse as we age, risk averse people don't like changes, without change you don't have a chance to fail, or succeed. If people to live longer I would think that every other stage of life would start to stretch. Take presidency as an example, its a four year cycle. If life expectancy was 200 years, would it not make sense to have presidents for 8 years? Would you retire after 30 years or 60 years?
This makes the assumption that life is simply about progressing the human species. Progression to what though? One should aim to lead a happy life, of which making things better for the next generation is a byproduct.
Indeed. That is the assumption I made. Personally, for me life without progress is a meaningless one. But I can imagine the opposite as well. Once you have gotten all you need you try your best to preserve it as long as you can, anything new or different is a default no, because, why change something that is not broken? That is depressing, again from my perspective.
This test isn't for life longevity, but to combat the frailty common at the end of one's life. You still get the 80 years, but the last 15ish aren't plagued by a slow, beleaguering death march, while you drain the resources of your children (also, so you can be a more productive member of society, I guess).
Office workers on 50th floor will certainly be highly motivated to pay the price. Also, there will be medications which mitigate the urge to die (What's the word? Antipsychotics, I guess).
I agree, there are many details which an author will need to explain. People can be protected by mighty authorities and live in a safe environment. But those medications will be prohibited of course. In other case people just will not be working!
