history of the entire world, i guess

Journey to the End of Time - [link] Veritasium on Thermite reaction - [link] Problems of a Shared Office - [link] History of the entire world, I guess - ▶ this video Colin Furze Underground Activities - [link] Future of Reasoning - [link] Sex in Trek - [link]

in “Ask HN: What's your favorite YouTube video, ever?” · View on HN

Everything from 3 blue 1 brown: [link] Visualization of Quantum Physics (Quantum Mechanics): [link] history of the entire world, i guess: ▶ this video TIMELAPSE OF THE FUTURE: A Journey to the End of Time (4K): [link] Humanity was born way ahead of its time. The reason is grabby aliens. and Grabby aliens: when we'll meet them, how big they are, and other predictions [link] [link] Everyday Astronaut videos (he has 90 min documentary on Soviet rocket engine): [link] Cool Worlds - a lot of 25-35 min very nice astronomy explanations: [link] 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss: [link]

in “Ask HN: Long-form info-dense videos on YouTube you would recommend to anyone?” · View on HN

smartereveryday I love (particularly the enthusiasm), numberphile too. Anything (not a channel name, just anything) by Tom Scott, his recent gameshow has been pretty good as it's like Only Connect but I've got a better chance of answering the questions. Huge backlog of things too and as he's got more popular he's got more access to interesting places and things. Just seems like a genuinely nice guy explaining things he finds interesting. Probably worth starting with "things you might not know" or "amazing places". CollegeHumor - can be hit and miss but the ratio is good enough for me. They did a series of a gameshow called "Umm actually" which was great. Gus Johnson - never quite sure where I am on things going too far on these but it keeps me laughing and coming back. exurb1a ClarkeAndDawe - teaching me about Australian politics, one fake interview at a time. What got me into it: [link] Bill Wurtz - Ranging from absurd 5 second clips to, well, this: ▶ this video CasuallyExplained

in “Ask HN: Which YouTube channels do you watch regularly?” · View on HN

Unfortunately, I don't see there is any healthy middle ground with even existing tech, let alone future tech. -- From the perspective of tech, secrets are mandatory and impossible: Mandatory for the functioning of identification, of logging in with a secure password that remains secure. The modern world would just stop functioning if passwords were not secure, if online orders or banking could be intercepted by criminals, and there's no way to limit encryption to "just the people who need it", because that's approximately everyone on approximately all economically relevant websites. Impossible, because surveillance tech is already powerful, and also improving so fast. Drones with telephoto lenses to watch you type your password, or duplicate every key on your physical keyring. WIFI used as wall-penetrating radar. Laser microphones to hear your conversation. Side-channel attacks from Van Eck phreaking onwards. The attacks are increasingly affordable, I have to assume at this point that organised crime uses them. (For future tech, I think we're only a few years from "smart dust" that's actually dust-sized). -- From politics, it's no better: We all know about our own secrets, the importance of keeping them. Many of us are familiar with the lessons of history, where governments use secret police to engage in covert ops against a political, ideological, or social opponents and dissidents — even the term "secret police" is a shorthand for authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. And

in “UK Effort to Keep Apple Encryption Fight Secret Is Blocked” · View on HN

Presumably it caused some kind of problem back then too, so that's why they put it in. Also, it's bad for the guy who owns all the land in that sweet dank river valley near you[1] if the people who do the work on that land start to covet his things in particular. [1]: ▶ this video

in “How Can We Create a Manual for Civilization? (2017)” · View on HN

It's an LLM, "pretending" and "truly beleiving" are the same, or rather don't exist. It's like, when you use prompts like : "You're an helpful assistant", is it believing, pretending, or beleiving to be pretending to be an helpful assistant? It's as funny as disconcerting to see intent and will attributed to probabiltities. Feels sometimes like we're close to making a religion out of this. History of the human race, i guess ( ▶ this video for the ref).

in “MonadGPT – What would have happened if ChatGPT was invented in the 17th century?” · View on HN