I think it exists because it's a concise way to communicate "this is ending, and will end in a predetermined amount of time, but it has not yet ended" in the same manner that sunset indicates that a day is ending but has not ended yet.
I think this reply actually captures one of the problems with the term. It's super passive.
I realize this usage is becoming an official usage, but the original meaning was something that would end by design and automatically unless it was renewed. Like a law had a sunset provision if it already had an ending named at the time it was created. So the ending is built into the original plan from the beginning, it's bound to happen unless something changes.
Like... a sunset.
It's not something passive that's happened at Google though. They're saying we are going to close a service that is open, and has been expected to stay open indefinitely. It's not a thing that is just kind of happening, it's a decision that was just made and is being newly announced.
I'm a non-native speaker and sunsetting is not clear to me. I guessed what it means because I know Google and how popular Google+ is (in relative terms, I'm sure there's still hundreds of thousands of people who will lose contacts over this), but if someone had said Cloudflare is sunsetting, I'd just not have known what it meant.
And even knowing what it means, as I do now, I wouldn't say that sunsetting is any clearer in communicating that it's "going to" end than "shutting down" or "stopping" Google+. It's not as if the proposal said "ended" or "shut down" Google+, the "are" in something like "We're shutting down Google+" signals continuation to me.
A Google+ private community allows social, collaborative photo sharing photos with friends with login required. This is not supported in Google Photos! With Photos shared albums you can select people with whom to share, but those people just get an email with a secret token embedded in a URL -- aside from trusting your non-technical friends not to accidentally leak this URL, there is no way to know who is viewing the photos or remove access from specific individuals. I really hope the Photos team upgrades their shared album permission model now that the alternative in Google+ has been sunsetted.
Xeno's paradox is a simple one. It's solved by the physics law x(t)=vt (assuming no acceleration) and the application of a geometric series.
Statistical decision theory also supercedes many philosophical problems.
A number of lesswrong articles, typically addressing the nature of categories and how to reason based on them, also move into this territory and browsing lesswrong is probably worthwhile if you are interested.
>A number of lesswrong articles, typically addressing the nature of categories and how to reason based on them, also move into this territory and browsing lesswrong is probably worthwhile if you are interested.
To summarize, for those who don't want to archive-dive LW:
Analytic philosophy has traditionally held that concepts/categories are logical: defined by a conjunction or disjunction of predicates in a formal language. Or at least, it holds that they ought to be once we stop being silly and think clearly.
Most everything we've ever learned in machine-learning and cognitive science instead tell us that concepts/categories are statistical, and that formal logic is therefore not only a brittle framework for real-world reasoning but thoroughly incapable of describing where its own constituent objects come from in the mind.
were statistics and controlled studies discovered in the domain of philosophy? Or were those discovered by mathemeticians, which simply replaced philosophy.
This is a false dichotomy. Frege was a mathematician and wrote philosophy attempting to explain what a number was. Questions about which domain this effort ought to be bucketed in don't have an answer.
In addition to the math and statistics described by others here, a better understanding of biology has helped solve some problems in ethics. For example the beginning and end of personhood; the beginning is not before the fusing of gametes, and as the brain is the seat of consciousness, someone's "soul" does not lie in their heart or liver, loss of brain function is therefore the end of personhood.
That strikes me as a pretty extreme reaction. If it's an issue you care about and you think it's a viable approach, you'd really withhold your contribution on the basis of a required email address?
It smells bad. If I'm not explicitly asking them to send me stuff, what are they going to do with it except send me stuff I didn't ask for, AKA spam. This particular project may well be an exception, but on today's internet that's a healthy reflex.
Because it wouldn't be the first time I'd have been bitten by making donations to organizations that kept begging for money through the contact information provided.
I have no idea if they plan to do this, but I suspect they might (otherwise why would they require an email address?) and the onus on them to prove they don't intend to do that. Claiming you want to do something good doesn't automatically win everyone's trust.
Keep an eye on http://hypothes.is. I think they plan to support private annotations, and handle PDFs through pdf.js. It doesn't have an offline document management component, but it could be used as the annotation component in a larger system.
While it is clear that Broder exaggerated some of his claims, Musk also made several baseless and misleading claims in his responses and then threw a bunch of plots at people to "prove" his points. Most people cheering him on just didn't read carefully enough to notice.
I don't disagree with you, but as I understood it the author is partly dismayed by the fact that the delivery fee is so large. Even if every copy were delivered via 3G (which is unlikely), $2.58 for an 18 MB file seems steep. Sure, on one level it's not his place to complain -- he still probably made a boatload by leveraging Amazon's massive sales platform -- but I also understand that pricing schemes like that can feel like a bit of a rip-off (e.g. $20 printers with $40 ink cartridges).
Is it unique enough that you can be sure it's your password, and not someone else's? I ask because the cracked passwords seem to be the simple/obvious ones that are likely to be used by multiple people. If it is strong/unique though, it would effectively confine the hack time to the last 2 days.
