appletrotter

Being pedantically correct would ruin the intended rhetorical point of reversing the standard phrase, though

Maybe it's a sign

That all being said, every animal has it's own personality. So it's best to match them with an environment that fits their personal needs.

That's a lot of words to explain a simple concept

Very astute observation. Might I even add, as humans we never know when our last day could be. So I find it silly to gamble, since I could easily die in a car accident on my way to pick up my winnings.

You have to stuck with an OS that sucks, while in the PC market you have plenty of OS choices, Windows, a million of Linux distributions

Windows is 10x more enshittified than OSX

An Apple machine is basically throw away: no component inside can be upgraded, you need more RAM? Throw it away and buy a new one.

Tell that to all the people rocking 5-10 year old macbook that still run great

Germany?

"Everything that can be invented has been invented"

Ah my favorite, entirely made up quote.

Apocraphyly attributed to the U.S. Patent Office Commissioner in 1899.

This is apocraphyl :(

Undefeated when they break into your home

Insufficient granularity of data

Probably a bit, at least some execs might want to have some cool shit on their resumes

Your response is crazy to me. Humans are known to be remarkably inconsistent in behavior. Please read ‘Thinking Fast and Slow’ or at least go back your HS psych 101 notes.

Humans have the meta-cognitive abilities to understand when their abilities are insufficient or when they need to reinforce their own understanding

Two word reply: dunning kruger

I feel like this rhetorical question of yours was reductive enough to constitute B&W thinking

So your argument is that Bell Labs should have never happened? It was a bad thing for humanity?

A person can appreciate the contributions of Bell Labs while still agreeing with the decision to ultimately have broken up the company.

I’m betting on waymo because they use lidar

Because processed foods are associated with many health complications.

Sources to back your theorem on the cause of obesity?

What? What would make you think that dehydrating a food would make it go bad quicker?

I believe that they can already solve novel problems. I can’t find a link but I’ve seen something where ai-skeptical researchers were surprised by chatgpt’s ability to solve certain problems that absolutely wouldn’t be in its dataset.

But of course LLMs can’t handle basic math

Many of those projects are defunct, remarkable hacking is truly in a dark ace.

The Google drive integration is completely different to the connect one.

It’s not automatic, it’s manual.

It works essentially in the same way that the ‘send to email’ feature works. Which means if you make a change to a file, you have to delete the file on gdrive and reupload it.

Not uncommon

No, no one past middle school cares about the color of the bubble.

This is just objectively not true. The nature of green vs blue messages feeds into the in-group out-group dynamics that humans (children and adults alike) are prone to.

This is by design. This works well for apple.

Idiot directors? I was going to rebut your comment but on second read I’d rather just point out how dismissive and inflammatory your comment is.

Have you ever heard of lucid dreams?

Great point

Yeah, you can set a mark with ‘m’ and then go to it with the tilde key

I think your ideas around ‘tradeoffs’ here are very confusing.

Tradeoff is such an intrinsically correct term to use here. People with autism/adhd are worse at some tasks, and better at others. That’s what a tradeoff is.

There are similar discussions around deafness. Deaf people often don’t like to see their deafness as a disability, but as something that defines their culture and experience. That’s still a tradeoff. You can decide to give your child cochlear implants, and integrate them into mainstream schooling - or you can opt out of that, and integrate them into the deaf community. That’s the very definition of a trade off, and it’s a very valid and difficult question.

The issue I have with your take is that its adoption can reduce people’s feelings of agency around their way of life. What works for you isn’t necessarily universal. The idea of a tradeoff is that the same decision can have different meaning to people in varying contexts. You might suggest that people have been conditioned to want to be ‘normal,’ but that is an oversimplification that ignores individuals’ agency, and again, unique contexts.

It reminds me of the movements that existed to push for the non-medication of schizophrenic patients, and to treat them as just differently abled. It completely ignores the quality of life impacts that these things can have. Obviously ADHD/Autism is completely different from schizophrenia, but it’s the same principle.

Vimium has this already built in.

Your portrayal of evolutionary processes oversimplifies the intricate dynamics at play. While you emphasize the complexity of cellular mechanisms, suggesting that such complexity cannot arise from "random mutations" alone, you overlook the essential role of natural selection. This process is anything but random; it is the methodical mechanism through which advantageous traits are favored over time, shaping complex biological forms.

Moreover, referencing Michael Behe's concept of "irreducible complexity" and Michael Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" does little to undermine the robust body of empirical evidence supporting evolutionary theory. These critiques, while provocative, have been extensively rebutted in peer-reviewed research. The consensus among biologists is clear and based on a wide array of studies—from genetic sequencing to fossil records—that collectively validate evolutionary theory.

To dismiss evolutionary biology as an "unproven theory" is to ignore the comprehensive and corroborative data gathered over decades. Such a stance not only misrepresents the nature of scientific inquiry, where theories are continually tested and refined but also underestimates the adaptive power of natural processes documented in both the laboratory and the wild.

In response to your comment, it's important to clarify several misconceptions about evolutionary biology and the synthetic theory of evolution. This theory is not a scam nor inherently atheistic; rather, it's a scientific framework that integrates genetics with Darwin's theory of natural selection to explain biological diversity.

First, evolution, through natural selection and genetic variation, is indeed capable of innovation. Complex structures and functions can arise incrementally over time. Features that provide a survival or reproductive advantage are more likely to be passed on to subsequent generations, gradually leading to complex adaptations.

The analogy of DNA needing to be like a program, CDROM, reader, and printer all in one cell is an oversimplification that misunderstands molecular biology. DNA replication, transcription, and translation are complex processes facilitated by a variety of proteins and enzymes, which themselves evolved.

Regarding Prof. Michael Behe's arguments in "Darwin's Black Box," while thought-provoking, they have been widely critiqued and refuted in the scientific community. Behe's concept of "irreducible complexity" has been shown not to preclude evolutionary origins, as numerous studies have demonstrated how complex biochemical systems can evolve from simpler precursors through natural processes.

Lastly, it's critical to approach scientific topics with an understanding based on evidence and consensus among experts. While there are always unanswered questions in science, the theory of evolution remains one of the most robust and universally accepted scientific theories, based on overwhelming evidence across different fields including genetics, paleontology, and molecular biology.