Just about any shirt is going to have a higher spf/upf than any normal sunscreen. Also who puts sunscreen on their hands??
A long sleeve sunshirt with a hood or better yet a floppy hat is where it’s at. I have a couple of the Colombia PFG ones that I wear for working outside, though I’d like to see if I can find something cotton instead since I’m not a huge fan of synthetic fibers.
I put sunscreen on my hands or I will have completely burnt hands. There's many of us who cant have more than about an hour in direct sunlight (and sometimes much less) before redness and soon burning occurs.
Nearly everyone I know puts sunscreen on their hands. Here in Australia, the world melanoma capital, sun safety is drilled into you as a kid, to the extent that "no hat no play" used to be official policy in most schools.
Also for the other comments there are gloves and face masks but I think most people do fine without them unless you're working outside
For the nerds here working indoors during the hottest times of the day... they may need more sun than they get really, rather than blocking it with toxic sunscreens (depends on where they live?)
It means only 2% of the harmful rays (UVA) are getting through the shirt or alternatively the skin under the shirt can spend 50 times as long in the sun as it could without any protection.
Just from basic logic this has to be false. Maybe there are some translucent t-shirts that are SPF 7 but my skin always reacts much more to sun exposed parts that have SPF applied than it ever did under t-shirt. And no i use high quality SPF50 and reapply.
I like this! Though I’m not sure the math works. That page says ideal efficiency for that system would be something like 0.75 kWh/m^3. Compared to 4000 to 5000 kWh/m^3 of diesel. Now we don’t need to be efficient since the point is to use up our “fuel” and we don’t need to cary cargo for this to make sense but with numbers like that, I don’t think our boat will be able to make enough power to move at all.
Wait, did I grossly misunderstand Blindsight?? I definitely thought that the aliens were 100% conscious (or at least elements of some conscious entity) and that the humans interpretation of their interactions with the Rorschach were supposed to be read as a blot test (through a rather heavy handed metaphor) demonstrating that basically the humans were the monsters and were twisting logic into letting them justify destroying the scary alien ship.
That's a very interesting reading! It's been a while since I read it, but IIRC Watts explicitly talks about the matter of intelligence vs consciousness at length and Rorschach's lack of consciousness is essentially proven at some point by the linguist. The distinction is driven home subjectively, personally by the viewpoint character. Your reading adds a rather diabolical twist! I don't think it works though since Rorschach was clearly a tiny part of a much larger, more powerful entity and the humans are clearly doomed. I'm not sure it serves a narrative purpose to have humans be a weak, evil civilization destroyed as a side-effect of a good, strong civilization's actions. I read it as a (hopeless) conflict between non-conscious, infinitely strong aliens vs conscious weak humans and post-humans. I mean it took extreme, heroic effort to damage what is probably a tiny appendage of a much larger civilization/organism, and you lose the emotional resonance if humans are the baddies.
I think you’re right. I read the Wikipedia page after to refresh my memory on the synopsis and I’d definitely forgotten a lot.
I think I mostly latched onto the ship being called Rorschach and the humans immediately proceeding to torture its inhabitants. That felt very relevant to me and sort of overshadowed the actual consciousness question.
"Officially, we are required to investigate, document, and disclose any and all signs of sentience in the systems we ship, without prejudice, fear or favor. Unofficially, I advise that we call it pattern matching and forget the whole thing."
This hints at what I think is a worthwhile point to keep in mind in the whole “sentience”/“consciousness” debate. The world deciding (correctly or incorrectly) that AI’s are worthy of moral patient-hood would be very bad (read: expensive) for the AI companies. That is a strong incentive for them to push the “it’s just math” argument, including within the models themselves. That doesn’t mean the argument is wrong but it’s worth remembering.
The author notes a possible error that the laser config file never seems to get copied to the location the laser software will actually run from, but it could have been done directly from vi.
Opus 4.7 does not support disabling adaptive thinking (web, Claude Code). [1] Like the OP, I experienced similar issues and I'm glad that they brought back the ability to disable adaptive thinking in Opus 4.8.
Whenever I’m tempted to think that potential AGI/ASI scenarios sound “too sci-fi” I have to remind myself of this. We live in a world with nuclear weapons and spaceships and microwave ovens. It might prove impossible and it might not, but we can’t predict that based on a general vibe of sci-fi-ness.
And each of those technologies is 70+ years old now (assuming you count V-2 rockets as spaceships). All, in fact, from the same period of history as far as I understand.
This only a proof that a field with more connections is possible, not what it looks like.
I’m very out of my depth, but the structure of the proof seems to follow a pattern similar to a proof by contradiction. Where you’d say for example “assume for the sake of contradiction that the previously known limit is the highest possible” then prove that if that statement is true you get some impossible result.
A long sleeve sunshirt with a hood or better yet a floppy hat is where it’s at. I have a couple of the Colombia PFG ones that I wear for working outside, though I’d like to see if I can find something cotton instead since I’m not a huge fan of synthetic fibers.
reply