"All you need to understand" is for insects.

Some ideas on how am I supposed to start hating my notes:

* They grow to 100MB, then it starts to be a burden

* I switch from notepad.exe to a dedicated application which somehow exploits my hobby of writing notes

* I develop OCD or something else

None of this seems very relatable. At this point, I might be writing a new note with these ideas, updating it when I get more ideas or when the one, most plausible explanation jumps out at me. Then I would read it years later and have something to think about before bed and have a good feeling that I didn't lose something and I am not left with thougths about the last episode of a TV show. Or is that supposed to be a bad feeling?

Yes, stellarators are different.

I think this is distinct from "ability to perceive green, which doesn't exist". A neural network trained to distinguish green in the output of a spectroscope will perceive green without ever knowing there is something like a "neural network" or "thoughts".

Also, this probably can be detected from the outside via debugging. What cannot be detected may be the thing that distinguishes a hypothetical "philosophical zombie" from a truly conscious human, but I don't think anything like a philosophical zombie exists. Once it is physically identical to the human, it will also be thinking identically.

As a next step, you may observe humans around you and realize that the thoughts you perceive seem to be running inside the head of one of these humans (which you will call "me"). However, I don't think knowing what you look like from the outside is necessary for consciousness.

Also, how exactly does time help to save space? Is this about some sophisticated hash functions? Handling collisions?

"It is not missing anywhere, so it isn't stealing" does not apply. What applies is more like "This paper says it is stealing, so it is." The paper says it because a human wrote it there, as a result of whatever complexity going on in their natural neural network.

Please notice I didn't say "right", "wrong", "good", or "bad" anywhere.

By "repeat last command", I meant repeating a single command with ., which can do simple things like pasting a string, deleting something, toggling case, incrementing an integer, and probably more stuff I don't use. Then there are macros which can repeat multiple commands, and are actually not much harder to use than the dot.

Another thing I like about the repeating approach is that you don't have to find all the places beforehand. You can target some of them with a regex, then remember to do more of them with another regex, then the rest, one-by-one by hand.

I used to think that typing in multiple places at once was cool, but now I wouldn't go back. Not even if other editors are catching up. Are they, by the way? I remember Notepad++ could not do much more than insert the same string in multiple places at once, but I confess, I have never used VS Code, Sublime, Atom, or really anything that popped up while I was in the vim rabbit hole. Am I missing out?

Notepad++ has multiple cursors. Vim has "repeat last command", which is better.

Yet, I think many many nurses are needed to beat the 342 million.

Zero hypothesis: N deaths happen by chance, given a known probability distribution of patient deaths.

Alternative: There was a different probability distribution in play (apparently facilitated by a specific nurse).

P-value: 1 in 342 million, really convincing.

So, is the fallacy that somebody calls the number "probability" rather than "p-value"? Or am I getting it wrong?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing

All the money the rich make by selling their robot products to who? Each other? Certainly not to the destitute workers, those don't have money.

I agree that there is a risk that a minority will hoard the new resources for themselves, only it's not this simple.

Though, I think my example was misunderstood. I meant, why is it a problem that there is no set meeting Russell's definition, but not a problem that there is no number meeting my definition. The example would violate an axiom if there was an axiom like:

  To every definition of a certain kind about natural numbers, there is a number which satisfies it.