@zPvQINBQvfFR's banner p

zPvQINBQvfFR


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 23:43:37 UTC

				

User ID: 277

zPvQINBQvfFR


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 23:43:37 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 277

A bit of a difference between "mind that has been paused and will resume in X hours" and "no mind at all".

There are startups working on synthetic milk. Seems like it would be easier to make than synthetic meat. At least nobody should complain about texture.

Not really. I wasn't aware that Title IX was that old and thought it was something created shortly before the whole college sexual assault drama started.

It's possible that it still illustrates the principle, though not as sharply as it would if Title IX was a more newfangled thing, but I don't know how the American political discourse in the 70s looked like.

Is all of mathematics shallow and trivial?

vorelated

Kinky.

I'm pretty sure he knows that's not how Christian marriage is supposed to work, but also that formal rules are often ignored in practice for various reasons. Is his father's failure in that he didn't raise him to be a turbo-autist who can't distinguish between rules-as-written and rules-as-practiced?

Should we?

As a form of enforcement of a culture's values is a target approach relative to the person's individual failure to meet it not efficient. I know experiencing the opposite where everyone in a group is punished for the actions of one person is brutal.

I think "don't shit on the weak for fun and self-aggrandizement" is a cultural value of the Western civilization, so people violating it should be counter-bullied by Society.

What's dumb? Wanting to enjoy a game's mechanics without being forced to compete in big sweaty boy league?

On Ozempic I am rather bearish. There are very few buttons in the body which can be pushed for gain without many side effects. It sort of violates a no-free-lunch theorem (which I do believe in) regarding pharmacology.

That seems too strong. A no-free-lunch theorem for pharmacology might make sense for things that we expect to have been already optimized by evolution. Maintaining a good weight in an environment of caloric abundance and whatever else is causing the obesity crisis (corn syrup? microplastics? the chemicals they put in the water to turn the frogs gay?) is probably not one of those things.

You accidentally.

Apparently when some Russians made a local chan-style imageboard, they went a bit too far with being inspired by the original name (at least change the number).

I flatly don't buy that whether I hit a guy or not is just stochastically determined by parameters plus randomness, I believe that it's actually a product of me electing to do so or not.

There's no contradiction here. You are (some of) the parameters.

Just because people call something "creative", doesn't mean it actually is.

If we restrict ourselves to the domain of cognitive tasks (ignoring the complexities introduced by physical labor), then I think the speed at which different tasks get automated by AI is a decent empirical index of how much creativity a task requires.

That's the AI effect transformed from a sociological observation into an axiom of some, as of yet unformulated, theory of true intelligence.

I wonder if Canada fares better. I kind of doubt it. It seems like the Chinese and maybe the French are the only ones left who can handle these types of projects.

Aren't Koreans pretty good too?

If this is still supposed to be about the unlikeliness of abiogenesis, then this analogy would only make sense if you believed that the conditions necessary for the arising of life happened only once in the entire history of the universe. Then it really would be a miracle.

But it's more like there are a bajillion people about to be executed, each with their own thousand-strong firing squad and we know that at least one of them survived. With so many tries, one of them could have gotten super lucky. (And of course, we don't really know how many marksmen you need to postulate to match the probability of abiogenesis happening in some small volume of the primordial soup at a particular point).

(If it's about the wonder of the fact that our universe can support life at all, then I'm fine with answering "I dunno" while insisting that there's no justification for jumping from "I dunno" to "therefore, God.")

By my count it's only 6 simple steps and one is optional but nice to have.

I knew I hadn’t had too much to drink - but had absolutely no idea what happened between that spiked drink and ending up in jail. To even list some possibilities is to discount the galactic extent of possibilities.

... You are going to tell us. Right?

So it's not actually a simple recipe, because a recipe is something that should give you expected result as long as you follow the steps, and the steps themselves should be simple, mechanical, and not contain any unexplained complexity.

Well, Cocaine Bear is just from last year.

It's not that small. If South Korea got teleported to Europe, it would be the 7th largest country by population. It is small by area and has a very high population density, though I'm not sure if urban population wouldn't be a bigger factor in ease of fashion spreading. And South Korea is surprisingly far from the top on that metric.

Do lawyers commit the majority of moral anti-realism despite being only a minority of the population?

Animals don't turn sunlight and rain into meat. You need to feed them plants. Which you have to grow first. Possibly on vertical farms run by hippy vegans.

Some animals can graze but I think this could sustain only than a small fraction of current meat production (after a quick googling, I saw the figures of 10% of beef production and 30% of sheep and goat meat production being sustained by grazing).

Finally, the ability to enjoy steak tartare without guilt or worrying about tapeworms.

and every single slav I've talked with and seen in thread

Is this one of those board-dweller endonyms like fa/tg/uy or /k/ommando? What's the etymology?

Newcomb's problem is a thought experiment where a mysterious entity, who's known to be very good at predicting people's behavior, presents to you two boxes: one is transparent and contains a 1000$ and the other is opaque and might contain either nothing or one million dollars. You're given the choice of either taking only the opaque box (which is what I call one-boxing) or of taking both boxes. The entity tells you that it decided whether to put the money in the opaque box by predicting which option you will choose. If it predicted that you'll take both boxes, the opaque box is empty. If it predicted that you'll only take the opaque box, it put the million inside. What do?

If that was too muddled of an explanation, then have a Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb%27s_paradox

Or alternatively, have a link to the explanation by everybody's favorite bombastic rationality guru: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6ddcsdA2c2XpNpE5x/newcomb-s-problem-and-regret-of-rationality