admin_account

That’s interesting! My mind always just assumes the reason is some “core” biological reason. I think contralateral wiring helps the brain manage signal sequencing while preserving evolutionary symmetry.

The spinal cord handles rapid reflexes (pulling away from a hot stove), leaving the brain for slower non-immediate tasks. By crossing nerves before they reach the brain a standardized delay is introduced, giving the brain a predictable offset to filter against. The optic chiasm follows the same logic.

And I think this is necessary to keep same-side brain-body pairs from over-optimizing (direct nerve connection from the right hand to the right brain hemisphere) their paths at the expense of balance, preserving biological symmetry.

My bio is rusty but I remember that archaeon are into extreme situations. Is it so weird to find an example of one essentially “offloading” some functionality to its host? Especially in a diluted environment like the oceans

Death, taxes, and pension liabilities absolutely nuking your financial future. GE, GM, Ford, Greece, and coming to your country soon.

From a technical standpoint, no. From a cultural standpoint, yes.

Jim Simons/Renaissance were the first great quant hedge fund. For the last 30 years their annualized returns, after fees, is 39%.

What is the point of UBI studies this small? Giving a few hundred people extra money each month will improve the well being, no question about it.

The issues with UBI only arise when it's done at scale. For example let's say you give every US citizen over 18 a monthly UBI check for $1000. What's stopping prices from rising accordingly? How will the ~$3T yearly UBI bill be paid for?

The question of how is this paid for is my biggest issue with UBI. If someone can give a reasonable answer that doesn't require national price fixing, taxing tech companies on their data, or some version of reshuffling the current budget around, I'll happily change my mind. Until then, for me, UBI is nothing more than an economists wet dream.

That's all true, but overall they've been steadily falling since 2010.

However I disagree with your view of the ecosystem. The web needs stability and consistency more than anything else. FF switching to Chromium would help with that. So many people have this knee jerk reaction of Chromium = Chrome = Google having total control. But don't understand the only reason Google has had this much control over Chromium is because no other major vendor used it. They were the biggest kid on the street. But now that MS moved in a few doors down, that's no longer true. Google has to acknowledge MS in a way they never did with Opera, Vivaldi, Brave, etc.. And the same thing would happen if FF switched to Chromium.

Idk about you, but having 3 of the 4 biggest vendors all being forced to collaborate and implement solutions supported by at least 1 of the others, is 1000000x better than having each do their own thing. You effectively go from a monarchy to some form of democracy.

This probably won't be popular but, does anyone take Mozilla seriously? For me they've always seemed well intentioned, but completely oblivious to reality. For example, does a browser with 5% marketshare really need its own engine? Can a browser with 5% marketshare even change anything if they wanted too?

Personally I don't think so, & also why I don't take them seriously. They seem to be more concerned with waving their "For The People" flag, than actually trying to change anything. If they were serious about "fixing the internet" they'd swallow their pride, transition FF to Chromium, & essentially become something akin to an activist shareholder within Chromium.