zero_iq

I wasn't arguing from a non-scientific point view at all. Reality is there. That doesn't make the problem any less "hard". But I think it is "hard", not "impossible".

And as any modern physicist will tell you: most of reality is indeed invisible to us. Most of the universe is seemingly comprised of an unknown substance, and filled with an unknown energy. Most of the universe that we can see more directly follows rules that are unintuitive and uses processes we can't see. Not only can't we see them, our own physics tells is it is literally impossible to measure all of them consistently.

Yet despite this, physics works. We can use our minds and tools to reveal the invisible truth. That's why I believe in the scientific method, and why I think consciousness is not necessarily an impossible problem (unlike Nagel).

But subjective consciousness and qualia fit nowhere in our modern model of physics. It's potentially "nature of reality"-level stuff -- and I don't mean hippy quasi-scientific mumbo jumbo by this, I mean it seems to reach right down deep into the fundamentals of what physics is and seeks to achieve, to a level that we have not yet uncovered.

I don't think it's impossible to explain consciousness. It is part of the universe and the universe is there for us to study. But we are not ready to answer the question. We don't even fully understand what the question is really asking. It sidesteps our current model of physics. Obviously it is intimately connected to processes in the brain somehow... but that somehow is, currently, an absolute mystery.

I don't subscribe to Nagel's belief that it is impossible to solve, but I do understand how the points he raises are legitimate points that illustrate how consciousness does not fit into our current scientific model of the universe.

If I had to choose anyone I'd say my thoughts on the subject are closest to Roger Penrose's line of thinking, with a dash of David Chalmers.

I think if anyone doesn't see why consciousness is "hard" then there are two possibilities: 1) they haven't understood the question and its scientific ramifications 2) they're not conscious.

You should take a look at the game Cold Waters, if you haven't already.

Which will just push people towards file sharing. If your DRM makes your service less convenient than copyright infringement, people will infringe copyright.

If companies start getting too draconian, the ad-blocking/circumvention/copying/sharing technologies will start getting smarter and harder to detect and circumvent. It is a battle that cannot be won.

I'd say the main obstacle in the short term is that as Google controls both client side (Chrome) for the majority and server-side can manipulate web standards to make ad-blocking harder, by exploiting their near-monopoly. They've already done this to an extent by modifying browser extension APIs. But people can just switch browsers. I've already done that on mobile. And if ChromeOS prevents it, I'll be erasing it and installing native Linux.

If its possible to watch the video, then it's possible to watch the video without ads.

Worst case scenario: videos can be downloaded and adverts stripped from them. (If you can watch it, you can copy it.) Would you be prepared to trade, say, a 20 minute timeshift delay on your YouTube videos' initial publish time for no adverts? I would.

Yep, if you see the popups just refresh your filter lists and restart. Longest I've had to wait is about an hour for a fix, and that was a while back. Fixes seem to be coming much faster now as more people are watching this.

In addition to other reasons already given, commercial software may contain licensed code, libraries, assets, trademarks, and other IP that cannot legally be given away for free, or under an open source licence.

Sure, it may be possible to strip those things out, but that may leave the software broken or fundamentally changed, and it may be a significant amount of work to do, which am author or publisher is not likely to spend on abandoned software, especially if their free release would compete with any current products.

Users get a service, so it can be argued they are paid in kind. That's the price of their "free" services.

Whether you agree with that or not, websites are unlikely to pay users to use their services (unless they're at least providing content) any more than a coffee shop would pay its customers to drink their coffee.

Lead pencils are normal pencils. A "lead pencil" is any pencil with a fixed lead running down the centre.

However, the "lead" in a pencil is not made of lead, the chemical element. It is graphite and clay, and other materials depending on the type of pencil.

Modern-style "lead pencils" have never used actual lead as the pencil lead.

However, it should be noted that lead paint has been used in the past for the coating, which could lead to toxic effects when chewed or sucked, but this stopped by the mid 20th century.

Do you perhaps mean mechanical pencil? (Where you can feed out the lead mechanically and refill, reusing the casing.)

I heard a rumor that even non-vegetarians can eat salad.

I wouldn't trust myself with a full replicator. You're gonna have to turn on all the safety protocols, sobriety lockouts, and nutritional programmes.

Otherwise, I'm gonna start off with the intentions of designing a nice camera... and six months later I'll be a wasted super-obese cyborg monster who's caused half the planet to be devoured by self-replicating grey goo.

Ah, of course! And it does have extra buttons too. Remarkable they squeezed all that advanced engineering in under half a gigabyte, tbh. I clearly didn't think it through!