whelp_24

Gorillas are not vegan, they eat a significant amount insects. They also opportunistically eat small (vertibrate) animals. They also eat a whole lot more than humans.

Space which gets more expensive with density right? The density that you're trying to increase. This just makes it illegal for poor to middle class people to have cars.

Not Just Bikes is a convincing advocacy channel. But just because you agree doesn't mean you should ignore that he is trying to convince you of a certain viewpoint. Specifically, urbanization is good, cars are bad (and unfun to drive), bikes are great.

Rewatch the videos, you'll note you can only enjoy many of the changes if you're an advid year round cyclist who lives in a flatish city with nice weather (and who doesn't need anything too far away, most of the time). Buses need roads. Not everyone can cycle, not even with (very, very expensive, even on the low end) ebikes.

This is an ironic example. Countries are a social/political construct. Whether a country even exists (Taiwan, micronations, various other countries) depends on who you ask, as does the boundaries of the border. Countries do not exist in any physical sense. Indeed countries and race are very tied to each other and exist about equally. Even if you pretend that culture is a physical thing, you'll find that cultures don't align with the borders of Nation-states properly either.

Society exists, and it has (often serious) repercussions but it isn't an inherent physical property of geography or genetics.

You are just putting to much wieght on skin color. You can't tell someone's race by looking at them. Australia aboriginal people are not really related* the Africans for example.

*Beyond the degree that everyone is related.

Race is a political construct that varies in definition by country, culture, and year. (See how race is defined in places like Mexico and Brazil vs the US for example). People of the same race can much more variation in genetics that people of the same area. Where you live is actually a much better predictor of your genes (yeah it's correlated but obviously it's not the same thing)

Race is roughly correlated with ancestry especially in places where mating between races was discouraged. So often race is a close enough measure of family history, but make no mistake, there is no pure members of a race.

If there is a biological race like construct it doesn't match with whatever races your country's census records.

That seems really significant, email fowarding won't work anymore?

He was the sole occupant, and he was doing touch and gos (ie practice) not transportation.

This is like "Seinfeld isn't funny" in that once enough shows copy it, it looks cliche.

I haven't read this to be fair but this seems to question the dsm itself. https://www.technologynetworks.com/neuroscience/news/psychia...

There's not a privacy preserving way because children are smart. I don't think we should enable more surveillance for the flimsy "think of the children " argument.

You ever notice you can -use tires from arbitrary manufacturers -use oil from arbitrary manufacturers -drive to arbitrary locations (even offroad in your Corvette) -use nearly arbitrary accessories -use a universal port to get error codes (OBD-II) -make modifications and keep your warranty on unrelated parts

Ask yourself, would MacOs have all of the restrictions an iPhone has? If not even Macbooks block installation of 3rd party applications, why does it change when you add a cell radio?

Honestly,if someone were being paid to change public opinion around the case, this is what i would expect to read. Don't fall for Apple's marketing

Why is intelligence a bad descriptor?

This does not answer the question.

How many simple physics combinations until you get intelligence? Remember that you are made of cells, and everything you do (probably) can be reduced to a group effect of your cells.

I think intelligence is the correct word. Why not?

That's what eminent domain is.

You may be genuine, but an ad in the middle of a heartfelt confession seems like emotional manipulation. It's not the best look for your product which now seems like it can't stand on its own. Also, this type of post is extremely common as a "sacred ritual" to get paying customers attention.

If this isn't spam be honest about what you are trying to sell. At the very least tailor your ad to the website you're on.

Can't these airlines lobby against Security theater instead?

Masks are not 100% effective. Indeed, at it's height the hope was only to slow the spread to manageable levels, the spread was inevitable.

Some variants didn't show up in tests well. And being asymptomatic was/is really common. Why would you check if you don't have symptoms?

I think it implies that schizophrenia has something to with the visual system or something correlated to it.

Should the term AI just not be used until we have a skynet level ai?

I strongly agree that there is a difference between science and "science".

Science can be trusted. Measurements and the testing and retesting can be trusted.

I still wouldn't go so far. Science doesn't provide a pure understanding of the world it produces at best a model based on observations and axioms. These both can be wrong without politics,money, or personal bias. Our senses are fallible and sometimes you measured the wrong thing with the wrong tool. You shouldn't trust science, you scrutinize it and use what you find works until it doesn't (and then publish that).

What can be done to stop nonsense like this? Is this a case where writing to your congressman works?

...its a term which denies the axioms. Because I do not believe in connectionist models of intelligence, nor in the stats/chaining model here, I see no reason to give credence to any AI self assertion ...

While I disagree, I can respect such an answer. You fundamentally disagree with the possibility. The rest of my response is just some thoughts, no need to reply if you don't want. I respect your honest and rational answer.

Explain to me how it differs from "parse error on line #3, quitting." beyond "that string appears literally in the sources"

It different because it is generating novel sentences to novel situations. Not necessarily a high bar but it is different. I don't think that it can reliably quotes strings in the first place. In the more abstract sense, I don't think we have enough knowledge of our mind to say we aren't llms (less provocatively phrased, our minds could just be statistics models). Even if we aren't, there's no reason to believe that ai even has to work the same as human consciousness. Helicopters, balloons, rockets, and planes all fly but work very differently: we only measure flight by the end result. (Yeah, Helicopters aren't actually that different from planes in a physics sense)

(To those with predictable comments) I feel like the important question is when will you accept an ai is conscious? If not when it says so and not when it seems to display emotions (and change behavior based on them), when?

I have a feeling that there won't be a point of satisfaction. The familiar will always trail behind the new, and the argument "it's just a fancier version of the last ai iteration " will never die, at least to some people. I feel like maybe some introspection is required

Your cheese spray doesn't allow backups either? Cars starting to copy Apples anticonsumer practices is a legit problem but the argument op made was clear.

I feel like this statement is intellectually dishonest. Especially when Tay existed.

As a thought experiment, this is interesting. I was sorta expecting there to be a point where this is expanded to more useful topics but this post seems to actually be about butchers and the most vegan choice you can make.

If it isn't obvious, personally I didn't find that part convincing, but perhaps I am too carnivorous.

Nonetheless, I think that the thought process could be useful either almost directly (what car should I buy if i hate cars, or generally if i need x but hate x industry what should i get) or perhaps in a broader sense I am not quite invested enough to find.