That's why Boltzmann brains are a problem. If a theory predicts the appearance of Boltzmann brains, then that theory is (arguably) self-defeating.
For example, let's say you tell me your theory of the universe. And then I say, "Wait a minute, doesn't your theory lead to an infinite stretch of time where random brains can randomly spring into existence?"
If you say, "yes", then I'd say, "If your theory is true, then I'm probably just a Boltzmann brain, and this whole conversation is just a figment of my imagination."
I would assume that I'm probably a Boltzmann brain because the number of Boltzmann brains that ever exist will be far larger than the number of human brains that ever exist. Even if it takes a zillion years for a Boltzmann brain to appear, it will happen zillion times, over an infinite stretch of time.
Sean Carroll discusses this in much more depth in "Why Boltzmann Brains Are Bad" [1]. In the paper, he argues that "the theories that predict [Boltzmann Brains] are cognitively unstable: they cannot simultaneously be true and justifiably believed."
Yeah, like, I'm not going to ask anyone to use a different keyboard. I'm an adult, I can deal with it.
But I do think mechanical keyboards are way too loud, way overpriced, and way overhyped. (But that's just my opinion. I'm sure people would say the same thing about some of the stupid stuff that I'm into.)
For me, one nice thing about working from home all the time now is that I don't have to listen to everyone's annoyingly loud mechanical keyboards. I kinda hope this fad dies before I have to work in an office again...
People pay money for things that are pretty pointless. That's true.
Paying for an NFT seems especially pointless to me (and I suspect to most people). But maybe if the crypto folks keep lecturing us all online, more and more people will start to come around...
Let's say that I get paid basically the same whether my team performs adequately or whether it really excels.
In this case, why wouldn't I prefer friendly teammates? As long as we perform adequately, we're gonna get paid the same. Let the superstar assholes work on someone else's team!
"Dropping in a cheaper keyboard and cutting the touch bar is a mistake."
Sometimes people state their opinions as facts. Sometimes people don't say anything to defend or explain their opinions. They just blurt them out. An it makes the internet so fun!!
"dynamic programming" refers to something different. In practice, it often just means "solving a problem recursively using a memo table." But wikipedia obviously does it more justice [1].
It's a terrible name, and even the person who came up with the name admits that it's terrible: "The word dynamic was chosen [...] because it sounded impressive."
Software is incredible. Here we are, thousands of people across the globe, having thoughtful and interesting conversations, often on up-to-the minute information. The sum-total of human knowledge is available at our finger tips. We can fly safely around the planet.
OMG, this list would go on forever if we sung the praises of software.
It's complex because it's doing complex things, that no civilization has done before -- That no civilization has ever even contemplated before.
But, yeah, OK, the glib object model is complicated. I'm sure you would have designed it better, and simpler. But you know what? You didn't.
When trying to figure out what the truth is, it's important to keep in mind two things: (1) Corporations never lie! and (2) Once a corporation enacts a policy, that policy will never change!
So you see, Apple is only going to scan certain things at certain times under certain conditions. So we can all relax now, OK?
You can also view these as tools. Like, these are the rules of thumb that the brain lazily relies on. So if you’re pitching something, maybe try slipping a couple of these biases in there... (just don't make it too obvious!)
For example, let's say you tell me your theory of the universe. And then I say, "Wait a minute, doesn't your theory lead to an infinite stretch of time where random brains can randomly spring into existence?"
If you say, "yes", then I'd say, "If your theory is true, then I'm probably just a Boltzmann brain, and this whole conversation is just a figment of my imagination."
I would assume that I'm probably a Boltzmann brain because the number of Boltzmann brains that ever exist will be far larger than the number of human brains that ever exist. Even if it takes a zillion years for a Boltzmann brain to appear, it will happen zillion times, over an infinite stretch of time.
Sean Carroll discusses this in much more depth in "Why Boltzmann Brains Are Bad" [1]. In the paper, he argues that "the theories that predict [Boltzmann Brains] are cognitively unstable: they cannot simultaneously be true and justifiably believed."
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.00850