Garry Tan has been the most influential figure that I have ever had a chance to come across. He appeared right at my critical moments of life and death, at the turning points of the tide. I am certain to say that without Garry and his helping hand, my life would not be what it is today. I consider myself very lucky to have met him.
>And then I better understood the stupendous energy requirements for a two-way trip to even the very closest neighboring solar system. And it is just not practical, even for a civilization at the end of the technology development tree.
You're still looking at hundreds of years or more for a nearby two-way trip.
It is far more practical to send out probes one-way (which is quite slow), and then build the infrastructure at the destination to receive transmitted mind-states.
The initial probes take a long time to reach their destinations, because they have to have means to deaccelerate. The faster you accelerate, the more mass you have to carry with you to deaccelerate.
It's our current understanding of physics. Those limitations might be impassable. Or it might be possible that there is a higher physics where things like the speed of light are bypassed. Like discovering that quantum entanglement is based on some mechanism that can be manipulated to communicate faster than light, or one can skip over distances through higher dimensions, or we decode the source code of the automata that creates the universe and it's immediately replaced by one even more bizarre. There are some theories that this has already happened :)
The point is it's arrogant to say what's impossible for all time, because nearly everything we do today was impossible a short thousand years ago.
I think it's important to break the conversation clearly into two parts: Here's what could be true about aliens if we're largely correct about physics, and here's what could be true ignoring that constraint.
The problem is people want to have really muddled conversations about that. The people having the second kind of conversation yelling at the people having the first kind of conversation is probably the most frustrating element of all, especially when they strike a morally superior pose which is, IMHO, entirely unjustified.
If you want to ignore all current science and astrophysics when you discuss aliens... fine. Be my guest. No sarcasm. I have some beliefs on that front myself. BUT... you need to be aware that you're basically engaging in groundless speculation, and in particular, you have no grounds to be yelling at people about their groundless speculation.
We can have a much more grounded discussion about what aliens could look like if we are largely correct about science. And there's no need to accuse people about being "arrogant" if they choose to have that discussion, because frankly, of the two, it's the more interesting one. The "well, what if we're wrong about everything?" may seem like fun for a moment, but there's no there there, really. What if we're wrong about everything? Well, what if we are? What if we're all just in an ancestor simulation... but the descendants running it are super-advanced honey bees running their ancestors and we just happen to be around? Well... what if? There's nowhere to go, or if you prefer, there's nowhere you can't go, which is actually the exact same thing.
On the other hand, if we stick to biology and cosmology and relativity and science in general, we can have all sorts of interesting discussions. What about that result on Venus? That's a question rich enough to build a concrete career on. What would aliens look like in our real universe? How much more advanced could they be? Would they, in fact, build rather human-sized spaceships that are apparently capable of crossing the interstellar void, but not flying around in our atmosphere without crashing into things? Would they in fact need to keep kidnapping humans over and over for decades on end? Sensible discussions can be had on these matters if we start from a concrete base. The whole "But what if we're, like, wrong about everything and we're, like, actually soap bubbles floating in the wind?" discussion has nowhere interesting to go, because it creates just one big undifferentiated and indistiguishable mismash of what ifs.
You're probably not addressing me specifically, but there is no yelling in my comment.
I do think we have to ground any interesting discussion by what is possible within the limits of science. Otherwise we're just talking fantasy.
For the most part, I do not think we should discuss the limits of engineering, that is what's practical or not, because we're nobody to say what is practical to a type II or type III civilization.
My dad's astronomy professor told the class it's impossible by the laws of physics to create a telescope that can see exoplanets. He went through the equations to show you could never build a telescope mirror to accomplish that. What he didn't think of is we found other ways to create bigger telescopes and we used gravitational lensing to zoom in on a distant star. Nothing in our understanding of physics changed to allow that, merely a change in how we looked at the problem. That's why it's so arrogant. We don't know everything about what is possible or not, and one day we might just see a way around limitations that seem absolute today. Our short history is filled with us doing that again and again.
"You're probably not addressing me specifically, but there is no yelling in my comment."
Yes, my apologies for the implication. I deliberately wanted to pick a more sensible comment to post under.
"For the most part, I do not think we should discuss the limits of engineering, that is what's practical or not, because we're nobody to say what is practical to a type II or type III civilization."
There's two aspects to engineering we can talk about; fundamental limits, and whether we can attain those fundamental limits.
If you look up the concept of computronium, you'll find a discussion of the fundamental limits of data storage in our universe, for instance. Proposing an alien civilization that exceeds those is stepping into fantasy. We can sensibly discuss what just isn't possible.
On the other hand, given that the "fundamental limit" is "the number of bits you can encode on the event horizon of a black hole", it's at least plausible to consider that no possible engineering project could ever create such a storage device. It's hard to talk about the "what is possible" side.
Yes, I agree. We're probably not going to exceed fundamental limits.
However, some number of fundamental limits might turn out not to be fundamental or there might be a way around rather than through them. We can't be 100% sure of what's impossible, but it is stepping into the realm of the extremely unlikely, at least from our current understanding of the universe.
> The point is it's arrogant to say what's impossible for all time, because nearly everything we do today was impossible a short thousand years ago.
I never said impossible, I said impractical.
If you are content with really long travel times (thousands or tens of thousands of years one-way), then of course you can travel to other stars.
By the time such means are available, I doubt that entities will bother with shipping matter two ways over such distances.
Also, if you're talking about an uploaded or otherwise synthetic consciousness, that entity may be experiencing time a 100x or more faster than a baseline human does now. So a then thousand year trip would seem like a million years. That's a long time to stay away.
That seems likely from our perspective, but it's pretty arrogant to think we understand the limitations and desires of civilizations millions or even billions of years ahead of us.
Certainly we would have failed at that task of predicting our own limits and desires just hundreds of years ago, nevermind an alien race.
> It's arrogance because you think that your current system of science is relevant. Civilization has been around for only 5000 years.
So, if magic exists, there also might be aliens. Got it.
> How do you know other planets do not have elements that have anti-matter properties?
Well, we haven't observed anything that gives even a hint that something like that exists.
The matter / antimatter disparity is still quite a mystery. But we don't see any evidence of antimatter out there in any significant quantities. So if aliens want to use it, they have to make it the hard way, just like we do.
Beyond current state-of-the-art technology would make manufacturing and containment of antimatter easier, but even then it is a long way from practical.
50% of long-term cancer survival is high. He probably should have took it.
Alternative treatments don’t guarantee higher success than modern medicine. However, if modern medicine puts the chance of survival at < 5%, it’s not a bad idea to try fringe approaches.
Modern science aims to create a standardized approach for categorized diseases. Controlled experiments aim to find a magic bullet, but are these experiments really “controlled”?
Everyone eats differently; everyone shits differently. Different air quality; stress levels; sleep; metabolism. Not to mention, the body and its disease are both is ever-changing systems over time. Until we have nano-machines, we won’t know the true cause and effect of all these variables.
Therefore, the holistic approach* is to use intuition, adaptation, and nonstandard ways to deal with this recognition. The downside of this approach is the amount of information and the ability to determine the credibility (eg. random social media), especially for a layman. However, if one was knowledgeable enough to read thousands of academic papers, from various fields (outside of oncology) -- one could develop a more tailored plan for the individual that accounts for these other factors.
*Holistic approach does not mean disregard of science. It does not mean rejecting standard protocols. It means that one should consider a wider-range of factors, in addition to standard protocols. It is an approach that places more value on breadth.
Fringe approaches would not be considered "fringe" if they were proven to have an effect. Even if it improves your survival rates by merely 1%, it would be still used as part of modern medicine if there was nothing else.
The problem is that the quack makes you believe that it will work, so you're still wasting time trying the "treatment" and potentially suffering its side-effects (not to mention the financial impact). It's worse than not doing anything, since at least the latter means you've accepted your fate and can enjoy whatever time you have peacefully instead of being busy with a quack treatment.
Furthermore, modern medicine isn't inherently hostile to "alternative medicine". If you think about it, all the potential treatments being researched in labs right now (including for covid-19) are still at the "alternative" stage, and if they end up being proven to work they simply become "medicine". What modern medicine is hostile to is unproven, or proven not to work treatments.
If you think you actually have an "alternative" theory that isn't quack, you are welcome to do your research on it to at least rule out any existing reasons why it couldn't work (using existing medical literature), and if the theory still stands by then you are free to engage with the mainstream medical community or study, become a researcher and then test your theory in a safe and controlled environment so the outcome is actually valuable (and will influence further research even if this particular theory doesn't work) and not just anecdotal evidence.
This may be true in your experience or elsewhere, but it's patently false in my experience. There's 'standard of care', very narrowly scoped clinical trials, and everything else is "fringe". Some treatment proven effective for cancer? OK, but it wasn't proven effective for this cancer. Oh, it was proven effective for this cancer? OK, but it hasn't been proven effective after partially effective cytoreductive surgery. Oh, it was proven effective there? Yes but it hasn't been proven to be effective after disease recurrence. Oh, it was proven effective after disease recurrence? Ah, but it was only proven effective in germline mutations. Oh it was proven effective on somatic as well? Sure but not after immunotherapy has been tried...
On and on and on and on. The decision tree is so deep and patient communities sliced into smaller and smaller subgroups that we don't have enough people on the planet to 'prove efficacy' for them all (as if such a task is even possible, the most we usually get is evidence of efficacy in similar cases).
Some treatments are considered "Fringe" because there are other [political, structural] hurdles at play that prevent them from going through proper scientific process. Some people don't have time to wait 10 years for government approval, so they'd rather take the chance now.
Testing things is different than practicing things.
You cannot test many things. You also cannot prove many things. Look at nutrition. Determining the cause and effect of a substance on a human body is difficult.
Science is aimed at proving things. Sometimes, in life, that luxury is not available.
You can't test/prove everything, however my understanding is that at least a large part of these quack treatments (if not all of them) have already been proven not being able to work (or being actively harmful) in existing medical literature.
If someone had an effective treatment for cancer, why would they be peddling it among charlatans on social media instead of selling it to mainstream medicine?
The holistic perspective is that there is no one singular effective treatment for all individuals. It is a craft.
Perhaps curcumin works for one , not another. Perhaps the same curcumin works now, but not later. Or perhaps you'll never knows if it works at all. Being able to measure it is difficult. Welcome to the game.
It is a process that combines both thinking and feeling. (Intuition). Perhaps one day you step in shit. But the next day you find a flower. There is no right or wrong answer.
I do believe there are "charlatans" -- if that's what you want to call it -- who are attuned to this type of flow, or practice.
so the methods work, but we just can't tell if they're working? I imagine that would be quite financially convenient for people selling methods that don't work.
if it's a game you can't measure if you're winning, it's a casino game. and casino games always favor the house.
In holistic approaches, sometimes, the treatment works, but the cause and effect cannot be pinpointed. Oftentimes, it's not repeatable. That is because the state of the body is different from one point to another.
"Selling" these techniques or drugs complicates the matter. And this is why [alternative] therapies have a negative taste in scientific communities.
"However, if one was knowledgeable enough to read thousands of academic papers, from various fields (outside of oncology) -- one could develop a more tailored plan for the individual that accounts for these other factors."
Have you done so? Has anyone who follows "non-standard" approaches? (Yes, I'm aware that a few instances have; they generally become the "standardized approach", too.)
What about crafts that were sighted doing the same maneuvers in the 1940s and 50s? The obvious answer to your question is "latter", but the obviousness deteriorates as you look into historic occurrences.
Are we sure that previous sightings are related to modern sightings? If they are then they went up massively in frequency based on reports from pilots, though that might make sense simply due to improvements in our technology.
Forgive me if I don't quite find your source credible, since it appears to have been written by a volunteer, and since it doesn't actually give concrete evidence on maximum recommended dose.
nutritionfacts.org is vegan propaganda and shouldn't be confused with a good source.
Nutritional science is hard and we have very limited ability to actually study it and make strong recommendations. Cherry-picking phrases and results from limited power studies just muddies the waters.
> In his lectures, videos, and writings about nutrition he tries to persuade people to change their eating habits from a Western pattern diet to a whole foods, plant-based, healthy diet—optimally to vegan diet—and says that such a diet can prevent and reverse many chronic diseases.
> Retired physician Harriet A. Hall ... has written that ... Greger often overstates the known benefits of such a diet as well as the harm caused by eating animal products (for example, in a talk he claimed that a single meal rich in animal products can "cripple" one's arteries), and he sometimes does not discuss evidence that contradicts his strong claims.
> - Nutritionfacts.org is non-profit - Their conclusions are based on studies. - They're not trying to sell supplements or food products.
IMO: Your website is trying to sell a lifestyle. Their conclusions are made in advance; then they attempt to rationalize them with studies after the fact.
> Do they omit certain studies that contradict their overall conclusions? Sure. That doesn't mean anything to me.
Yes, and I took at look at them. Some of the studies (especially the blood cookies or whatever ones) actually mentioned that heme iron actually helped anemic children. Many of the others could not come to a conclusion.
"no more likely to suffer from iron deficiency anaemia than non-vegetarians"
But has actually deliberately erased the context (it uses the same PDF, the rest has been whited out in the screenshot):
"[In Western countries like Australia, where we enjoy a varied food supply,] vegetarians are no more likely to suffer from iron deficiency anaemia than non-vegetarians."
And shamelessly cherry picked:
"but a number of studies suggest that vegetarians are at greater risk of having low iron stores (as reflected by serum ferritin)."
So I'm going to suggest that people not pay this video much mind.
Yeah, it's not like life stops in-between YC rejections. I applied to YC 4 times between SFP2005 and SFP2008. In the meantime, I redid the backend for a 100,000 user website, wrote one of the top Haskell tutorials on the web, launched 2 products for a financial software startup, founded a company, pivoted said company 4 times, watched said company die, ported Arc to JavaScript, and learned a whole lot about programming, startups, and myself. I did eventually have a chance to be a cofounder of a YC startup (not by applying the normal way, but because PG put me in touch with one of the applicants in SFP08 that needed a technical cofounder and they offered me 20% of the company), but by then I'd realized that it wasn't really what I wanted at that point in my life. If the need arises, I'll apply again, but by now I've realized that my drive is to innovate and I don't care whether that happens in a big company or a startup.
I'd like to think of YC as something like the SATs, APs, or patent applications. It is a credential. It makes life easier for you in the future. Pick it up because you're ready for it and have already learned the skills you need for it on other more worthy projects, but don't make it your life's goal. Once you do that, it's only a weekend's worth of work.
That's a good point; I don't. I assume not, though, because I view YC as a program for those without much experience. Otherwise, one wouldn't trade so much equity for being but one out of a huge crowd of YC companies.
Congratulations, Garry!