CarbonIceDragon @ CarbonIceDragon @pawb.social

Posts

2

Comments

1,295

Joined

2 yr. ago

Lemmy users are, for a large part, former or concurrent Reddit users who did not like some action or another taken by the corporate administration of that platform, it would be a mistake to assume that they are somehow less liable to manipulation or jumping to conclusions that users of other social media merely on account of a somewhat anti corporate slant

Might not be much meat to some of the skeleton jokes, but at least they have good bones.

conspiracy theorists will fear things like this and then be against social programs to help the homeless get housing again

To be fair, it's not like everyone that doesn't vote hates him. Some do I'm sure, but there's also going to be people that think favorably of him but don't bother voting, just as there are and have been for his opponents

I guess my objection then is that I tend to take "just scale it up" to imply "all the tech development hurdles are done, we have a working prototype of the machine we want to build, we just need to construct a physically larger one", and so was taking the process of improving the efficiency of the reaction to useful levels and figuring out how to make a significantly more efficient laser as "we don't have this technology done yet, because we still have these milestones left". In other words, we're just arguing from confusion over different definitions of a word rather than the reality of what those words are referring to

That's what I was talking about regarding the lasers. As far I understand that result, it's net energy in a physics sense, as in the reaction itself produced more energy than put in, but because the energy put in isn't electricity itself, and the conversion process between electricity and energy in the laser is inefficient, the entire machine as a whole isn't energy positive, just the reaction. It can't yet be used as an electric generator, unless the reporting I saw on this at the time was inaccurate

Er, not really with fusion actually, unless you just mean "have made atoms fuse regardless of if it generates net energy or not" in which case we've had it for decades. We have managed net energy production if you compare the output of a very powerful laser used to compress the fuel to the energy of the resulting reaction, but crucially, the laser in question isn't perfectly efficient, and only a fraction of the electrical energy put in is turned into laser energy in the beam. This means that we still don't have net electricity production, and even once we finally get that, getting the tech efficient enough to produce enough electricity to be cost competitive will be a tough ask, especially as electricity from solar in particular has been going down in price of late.

if they were randomly placed, then couldnt you have a sponsor-block type system where instead of the ad segments being marked and skipped, information about the video is externally stored somewhere (like perhaps a really low res screenshot of the video every couple seconds, or some number generated algorithmically by a frame of video), and the results should be the same for all users for the actual video part, but if the ads are placed randomly, the ad section will suddenly not match the data other users had, prompting the video to skip until it matches again (with a buffer included if they remove the ability to move forward)

And we do. It seems silly to hold their wishes in such high regard compared to our own anyway though, we know more about how our system works in practice than they did when thinking of it after all, both because things dont often go completely as planned and we have the actual experience of using the result for a significant time, and because the system has been already changed in various ways already over that time.

We don't have to stick with the original design, the founders were in no way perfect

-claims to be against the US sending weapons to Isreal while they're conducting a genocide

-works to ensure the election of a man who's prior history of presiding over foreign policy towards Isreal proves that he would support them in this even more than the present administration.

Make it make sense.

Ah yes, because if a politician could control the weather, of course the thing they'd do with it is attack several swing states right before the election /s

Plot twist: 50% of each individual patient survives. Hope you get lucky with which organs make it

Sounds like this guy needs to back where he came from, and back where he was before he came there too, and so on and so forth until he ends up back at elementary school history class.

To be fair, regardless of one's stance on the utility of current AI or the wisdom of developing it, it is an extremely difficult and potentially world changing technical achievement, and given there isn't a computer science prize, physics is probably the most relevant category to it

Honestly I suspect it would do the opposite, Lemmy is a bit of a echo chamber and while users here heavily skew towards favoring Palestine in this, or at least condemning what Isreal is and honestly has long been doing to them, the US as a whole, even the base of the democratic party, has long been at least mildly friendly towards Isreal, and a large fraction will see Hamas's attack as justifying Isreali action. It's a bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for the dems I think where their current path angers progressives on the left, and actively sanctioning Isreal would probably anger the more center-right side of the party, and they need both to turn out to win. They probably figure that at the end of the day, the left either is mostly younger people that don't vote as reliably, or will bite their tongues and vote for them, because, well, if you're given only two possible futures, both evil, and a choice between them, one has a moral obligation to choose the lesser evil, no matter how evil that lesser is, just because by definition, the greater evil is worse. But the center-right, they probably figure, probably don't care about what is happening as much, and will feel much less uncomfortable about just voting for the republicans instead if the dem candidate doesn't do what they want.

That being said, it doesn't really much matter, ethically, if not helping kill tens of thousands of innocent people makes it slightly harder to win political power for yourself, it's still a pretty horrible excuse. Nobody sitting in a jury would let someone go free if they were accused of being an accomplice to a murder, if that accomplice's defense was "well, I'm running for mayor, and if I didn't help the murderer, his friends probably won't vote for me". Like I get that Kamala isn't really calling the shots on that, being only vice president currently, but she doesn't seem like she intends to change how Biden has handled the situation much.

Don't get me wrong, I am voting for her, I'm not one of those people that thinks that it is somehow noble to just let the greater evil win if it means not taking an action that helps the lesser evil beat it, I think that the going for the best outcome plausibly available is always the right thing to do and that doing the reverse because "well my hands are clean" is a misguided and self centered way to do ethics, but like damn people (to which I mean the people that actually side with Isreal in this, and the DNC I guess, not they they see my tired internet ranting), just because the other option is as close as the country has come in a century to "literally Hitler" does not mean that you have to emulate Churchill refusing to help the Bengalis.

Every company wants to make a profit. There are those that actually build stuff that works, even if only because having it not work would lose them money. Theres a reason that most planes dont crash for example, and things like Boeing having bad quality control are considered major scandals rather than an unavoidable and unremarkable norm.

Honestly I get frustrated when people (mostly my extended family admittedly) take from that movie the idea that the message is "dinosaurs are impossible to contain safely and we should never try to somehow recreate one". Like, no, we can make zoos for large, fairly intelligent predators or even bigger herbivores just fine, we do it all the time with things like lions and elephants, dinosaurs arent godzilla or anything. The issue with Jurassic park was that it was run by cheapskates that wanted to get something done fast on a budget without concern for doing it right. It would be like making a movie about the Oceangate disaster and having people conclude the moral of the story was "You shouldnt want to build a submarine because humans arent meant to go down there and it will inevitably go badly" rather than "You should spend the money to build your submarine the right way"

Im not familiar with him, but looking him up Im guessing youre mentioning him for promoting life extension research? Honestly Im not sure if what this article is talking about is even that relevant to that idea. Obviously you cant extend life indefinitely by merely trying to cure each type of common age related illness as it comes up, eventually the body is just too weak and easy to damage to keep it running. To actually extend life far beyond the current maximum you'd need to find a means to reverse the root cause of aging itself rather than just trying to patch the symptoms indefinitely

So by this logic, twitter is a roblox game?