SneerClub

1010 readers

1 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

self@awful.systems

blakestacey@awful.systems

dgerard@awful.systems

Vaccinations in Book Form? (awful.systems)

submitted 8 months ago by blakestacey@awful.systems to c/sneerclub@awful.systems

NSFW 59 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A while back, I set myself the project of figuring out how much of the MIT undergrad physics curriculum could be taught from free online books. The answer, so far, is more than I had anticipated but much less than what we deserve. But working on that, along with a few other conversations, has got me to wondering. We've seen TESCREAL types be just plain wrong about science many times over the years. Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality botches Punnett squares and pretty much everything more advanced than that. LessWrong demonstrably has no filter against old-school math crankery. The (ahem) leading light of "effective accelerationism" just plays Mad Libs with physics words. Yudkowsky's declarations about organic chemistry boggle the educated mind. They even manage to be weird about theoretical computer science — what we might call the "lambda calculus is super-Turing!" school of TESCREAL.

Sometimes, the difference between a TESCREAL understanding of science and a legitimate one comes from having studied the subject in a formal way. But not every aspiring autodidact with an interest in molecular biology or the theoretical limits of computation is a lost cause!

So, then: What books come down upon the superficial TESCREAL version of cool things like a ton of scientific bricks? What are the texts that one withdraws from an inside coat pocket and slides across the table, saying "This here is the good shit"?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] saucerwizard@awful.systems 10 points 8 months ago (2 children)

That one Stross essay on space colonization.

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 9 points 8 months ago (3 children)

This one?

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 10 points 8 months ago (3 children)

The essay is great, but I'd like to stop on this for a second:

the conclusion I draw as a science fiction writer is that if interstellar colonization ever happens, it will not follow the pattern of historical colonization drives that are followed by mass emigration and trade between the colonies and the old home soil.

Okay, but we don't need that much of a thought experiment to get there. Gliese 832 c is 16 light years away. That means that even if we figured out every technological issue with calling a colony there via Skype, we would have a message latency of 32 years. Can you fucking imagine negotiating a trade treaty where each round of negotiations takes THIRTY-TWO YEARS? How many Earth governments even remain stably in power for 32 years? Of course transporting the actual trade goods would take even longer. So, you negotiate a treaty over three generations of human beings, and then get the actual goods delivered in, optimistically, a few centuries. We're so good at planning things in advance that climate change will wipe us out in like 50 years, good luck running a trade operation where a freight you ordered will be delivered to your great-great-grandchildren.

With colonisation at best you're gonna get a bunch of disorganised human clusters that will grow culturally and ideologically apart really quick. It's obvious on its face that this wouldn't be a somehow coherent society. Again, how do you plan to organise a government structure where a single memo takes THIRTY-TWO YEARS to be acknowledged? Did anyone in TESCREAL ever grapple with the fact that our globalisation age was brought forth thanks to near-instantenous communications, and that's flat out impossible on an interstellar scale? Like, the speed of light is not something you can hand-wave away, it's a physical barrier to information.

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

the speed of light is not something you can hand-wave away

sorry i just woke up at 4am and realised that bitcoin actually fixes this so i retract my fud

[–] froztbyte@awful.systems 6 points 8 months ago

ah yes, quantum entangled blockchains, that's what we need to solve the scalability problem! that'll fix it right up!

[–] cwood@awful.systems 5 points 8 months ago

Well, minimum 32 years, as presumably there would be some inbox time and drafting time on either end, misunderstandings and subsequent discussion being so critical to avert when followups take a while.

[–] pikesley@mastodon.me.uk 5 points 8 months ago

@V0ldek @blakestacey

B-Arks. Put 'em all on B-Arks

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 7 points 8 months ago

what I'm trying to get across is quite simply that, in the absence of technology indistinguishable from magic (...) interstellar travel for human beings is near-as-dammit a non-starter

"Ha, you see, that's your problem right there", Yud exclaimed, "simply invoke technology indistinguishable from magic! Nanomachines, away we go!"

[–] saucerwizard@awful.systems 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Thats the one! I wish I could offer more.

[–] gerikson@awful.systems 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yeah Stross is an excellent corrective to most space colonization wanking.

In general British SF is a bit less hoo-rah! than American.

[–] YouKnowWhoTheFuckIAM@awful.systems 5 points 8 months ago

Everything is. I don’t need anyone to tell me that the Red Scare ruined philosophy of science, going to America was the original problem.