sethrin

I have no particular idea whether there's a business case for humanoid robots or not. I would love to have the argument set out well. Perhaps you'd indulge my curiosity.

That there can be differing viewpoints on this matter is demonstrative that sex as well as gender is a social construct: the categorization and distinguishing characteristics of sex are normative. It's deeply ironic that the people complaining about "gender ideology" are in fact its purveyors.

The only problem is that knitting wasn't invented until hundreds of years later.

Use the `method` method to get a reference to the one you are concerned with, then call `source_location` on it.

Even worse, there are programmers who have only had a high-school education and just seem to ''be good at it''. These scenarios and how they really do play out in real life have detailed at length.

This is classist at best and personally offensive.

I appreciate the source, but a website that advertises Michio Kaku is deeply disappointing.

I feel like the missing option is event handlers.

Neat. I visited Valdez, Alaska lately and a friend was pointing out the tugs there. They seemed somewhat larger than other tugs I've seen. A data sheet says they have about 4x the horsepower of Heidi Brusco, coming from a pair of CAT C280-16 engines. I'm not clever enough to figure out how those are started. Cool boats are cool

Which tug?

It's a reference to a song ("867-5309 / Jenny") by Tommy Tutone. It's pretty dated by now.

I think I'd argue for a sui generis classification, which does partake somewhat of the whistleblower, but it seems like calling Napoleon a general. He was certainly that, at times. Apologies for the nit-picking in any case.

Whistleblower is a very revealing thing to call Mr. Assange.

Unionize. Demand better working conditions.

I do tend to think I live a bit more in the present because of aphantasia. However, I also do have an experiential memory. It's not great, and largely not visual, and to the degree there are any visual elements they're pretty useless, like burnt fragments of a Polaroid. I think you're kinda having a hard time imagining this condition.

This seems like a bizarre statement, or at the very least your thesis does not seem supported by your example. There is no particular reason to think that Roman civilization should be the same after the passage of 500 years since the supposed founding of Rome. Ascribing that in any significant sense to Hellenic influence seems ill-founded; there was a massive difference in fighting style, and hence military virtues, in societies where military virtues were all-important. Also, as far as I know (which is admittedly not a great deal), early Roman combat and armament was more similar to the hoplite armies than later periods. Perhaps you can allay my ignorance here.

"Slave" cannot mean unpaid coerced laborer, especially since the society in question predated currency. In point of fact, there isn't a single set of conditions that uniquely define slavery, and historical labor relations were different to the point where using the term "slave" broadly is useless, especially across large differences in culture and time. I don't think the question of whether the Egyptians used slave labor is meaningful.

I mean yes, the ruling class was Macedonian for a while, but saying "Egyptians became Greeks" is broadly not true.

This is like prevaricating about whether the Earth is flat. If your standards allow you to set aside direct observations then you are not being scientific, and if you don't like "skeptic" as a label for that then I don't mind getting creative.

His comment was accurate, yours was misleading, seemingly deliberately. AGW is not in scientific dispute; the skeptics are merely unscientific -- politically motivated, if you will.

There are easier "facts" to disprove AGW that don't rely on innumeracy. I mean you don't really care, you just want to have a "gotcha" and not think past that, but AGW was considered disproved for a few decades and you could get some "stumpers" that aren't quite as silly as playing number games.

The oceans can absorb a practically infinite amount of CO2, so there's no way for it to build up in the atmosphere in the long run. Also, the atmosphere is already saturated with CO2 to the point where adding more will have no effect. Also, water vapor's absorption spectrum overlaps that of CO2 so there is no way for CO2 to have any additional effect. All of these facts were known more than a century ago, and consequently AGW was considered disproved.

"Skeptics" should not read past this point, because it turns out all of those things are misleading. The oceans don't mix fast enough to prevent CO2 buildup, and the action of CO2 is felt not in the lower atmosphere but at the radiative top-of-atmosphere, the point where outgoing infrared radiation is more likely to escape to space than strike another molecule. Adding CO2 makes the CO2-dense region greater in extent, thus the outgoing heat takes longer to leave Earth, thus raising the total atmosphere temperature and causing a nasty feedback mechanism with H2O. Because this changes which elevation energy gets radiated at, we can directly measure it. Checkmate skeptics.

To tie this back in to the main point, Callendar was one of the prime movers in rehabilitating the AGW theory (one of his papers amusingly refers to the theory's "checkered past"), but it took until Keeling's work in the late 1950s to conclusively demonstrate the year-over-year increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

I think the figure I saw was that if human emissions stopped tomorrow, silicate weathering would get rid of the excess carbon in something on the order of 10k years.

yes, and?

How do you feel about Crystal-lang?

Most often I do

  var_that_might_be_nil.presence || default

The point I was making was not about objectification but about risk. I don't necessarily approve of objectification but I don't see it as a deciding factor in sexual success. Someone who sees other people as things to be used is probably not great, but someone who will react violently to being denied sex is a serious threat, particularly if they also happen to have physical advantages.

Any given day, hey, maybe I feel like being treated like a piece of meat, but thinking I owe you sex in exchange for your being "nice" or "cheerful" is dangerous.

Instead of "I'm struggling to take this in good faith" you might try asking clarifying questions; it's less rude that way.

Talking about goals is a way of suggesting that sex isn't competitive. It is simply an act, with what meaning humans impart.

It’s impossible to disentangle reproduction from sexual behavior

Gay people beg to differ.

I'm not going to engage in generalities about how people affect each other; the subject at hand was a philosophy that encourages people to feel badly about themselves if they're not having sex with a "10", with an analogy to beauty product advertising. The claim was that subscribing to that philosophy was a choice. Happy to hear your thoughts regarding that.

The worldview here seems to be that women are sex objects and treating them like human beings is optional -- there is no utility in being "nice" or "cheerful" if it doesn't get you laid.

A lot of dating advice for men is women trying to explain how they feel about people who are larger, stronger, and think that they have some sort of right to sex.

Sex doesn't have a goal, neither does biology more generally. Reproduction as distinct from sex might be a safer argument, but reducing sex to reproduction is inapt, particularly in a discussion of human social behavior.

The active vs passive voice is depicting the angst as a choice, a reaction which is under voluntary control. No one is required or forced to feel social distress, certainly not by advertising or philosophy.

Systemic problems assuredly exist, but this article sheds no light on them.

I feel like the author is writing from a perspective of women being an alien species with incomprehensible motives, and their view of women is limited to how they are useful to men (most of the commentary here also seems to share this myopia).

I don't say slutshaming was good - I say that when it comes to intra-male relationships, the current situation might be even worse. During the times of slutshaming, there were two kinds of women: Good ones and bad ones. Post-slutshaming there is only one kind of woman, graded on a scale from one to ten in physical and social attractiveness. Competition for the tens is bitter.

Read this from the perspective of a woman, but especially a slut. You have invented a whole philosophy based on the idea that women have some sort of numerical rating, and that sex is some kind of competition. Presumably you're "losing" unless you're having sex with a "10".

Women often have impossible beauty standards marketed towards them, with the intent of making us feel bad so we spend money on self-improvement. This is the masculine equivalent. Nothing is tearing the "social fabric", you're tearing at yourself.

Japan surrendered because the US had total air superiority and bluffed about their supply of nukes.

This is at best disputed, and alternative explanations have a great deal more supporting evidence.