Mothra @ Mothra @mander.xyz

Posts

70

Comments

3,036

Joined

2 yr. ago

Remember that people are often stupid, not evil. You can do pretty awful things if you're dumb enough. Someone's razor, forgot who's

I can't tell if this is real or not. Not my president so I don't keep up with everything he does

I guess, if you manage to create both sperm and eggs from the same sample and then use it to create an embryo. It sounds prone to a lot of defects though, for the same reason it's not recommended to have offspring with your siblings. I don't think that's what they're going after here.

The presumption is that they would be able to combine sperm and eggs that are different enough to avoid this. Just like with any regular pregnancy.

Keep in mind we already know how to manipulate/edit genes to enhance or suppress traits. Being able to conceive an embryo in vitro means you can now create a human tailored to your liking, without even needing a womb. That's a couple steps beyond cloning.

I hope you are so right, I really hope

Sounds like you'd make a good AMA post

The roo is good and I would have it more often if not for the price tag.

The ants and mealworms were pan fried, sauteed I guess. They were good. Ants were like a zesty citrus crumb and mealworms were sort of like popcorn.

So practically a ritual. What's the point of voting if there is only one candidate? Rhetorical question

Not many, I've had crickets, ants, mealworms, venison, kangaroo, I think that's it for unusual. Not sure if things like duck and eel make it to the exotic list for you. I've had kangaroo more times than I've had eel though, probably just because of location.

Presuming you mean meat I consistently dislike no matter if it's well prepared or in good condition: None. I would say beef and chicken but those were isolated instances and you removed them as options too.

Then... I don't know, every time I tried something else it turned out to be good. Once I had a codfish that wasn't well prepared. It was tough like a shoe sole and full of bones. But it didn't taste terrible, so I'm not sure if it's a suitable option.

I'm a bit dull to predict the future. But I can see we already have "ownership" of GMOs available for companies. The "Dire Wolves" that got resurrected that you don't hear about anymore belong to a company. We got plenty of examples of companies marketing something as positive, such as Monsanto saying they actually feed the planet and whatnot. Companies that start open source suddenly turning for profit. And unscrupulous governments and corruption.

And now you have unlocked the possibility of creating fully customized humans in a lab.

What could go wrong?

Don't get me wrong I totally see how the technology can also be used for good. That's what OpenAI says about their product, too.

Ok sealion. We are gonna use loose as a verb the way you want it, not the way English speakers want it. You win. Go loose your social ties if it makes sense to you

It just gives the audience a clearer picture of the artist's process. I'm not saying artists (and btw I'm an artist) need to disclose every piece of reference they use for everything, every time. However many artists do share their process, and the way in which reference is used can vary greatly. Many artists use reference to practically copy the subject, others just use reference to understand the subject and then create something completely different. Or in a completely different pose.

As someone consuming art, I would appreciate knowing what type of mastery and skills the artist has- did they envision this in their minds? How much? What inspired them? Is this an accident or deliberate? Etc. This may be irrelevant to some people, but many at some point want to understand how the artist thinks and feels.

Before AI it would have been obvious that if the subject is not realistic and not found elsewhere then it has to be the artist's imagination, or an accident. Now an artist could be copying AI instead and you would never know.

I find that artists that tend to copy their references with high fidelity (such as many wildlife painters or illustrators, or personal portraits) are also among those disclosing their references the most. This makes the audience appreciate the artists' skills more. You can see the difference between the original and the result whereas you would otherwise have to guess.

I can see the fuzz. Yes it's probably the brand of paper. That's a nice granite brush holder you got there.

We're discussing the use of lose and loose in particular, not other words; and in the specific context of the text in this meme. Just because you can think of plenty of examples of social networks that have loose structures (and so can I, and most people) doesn't mean it's okay to use the word any way you feel is right for you.

Or in other words, a sentence can be structurally sound but be invalid in terms of cultural convention and language use. And in such a case, it's still deemed to be grammatically incorrect - whether it's misspelling or misusing of the word.

But you have the right to disagree all you want.

I disagree:

The phrase 'tight-knit community' exists, and is fairly commonly used.

We were not discussing 'tight-knit'

A 'loose-knit community' would have...

Yes, would have. I've never heard the term, perhaps it exists. But it's used as an adjective here, not a verb as in our case. Point irrelevant.

A social network is often mathematically/academically/professionally described as a bunch of points, clustered, with connections between them.

Even the very word 'network' is etymylogically derived from a net, an interwoven mesh.

You very much can literally loosen or tighten a net, make one that is more pourous or more dense in terms of threads in any given surface area.

Hey there ya go, even Threads is an actual name for a social network.

I think the metaphor or analogy of social networks being described by other terms that literally apply to an actual net or fabric is... actually incredibly common.

All this is irrelevant. Of course you can describe loose networks. Or meshes. Or nets. Note loose is an adjective in all of these cases, again. Not the usage we were originally discussing.

... You've never heard a person being described as having 'loose ties to (other person/group)?

Yeah I've heard. Adjective again.

Have you never watched any kind of detective show, a 'stop the terrorists' political action thriller?

Yes, I have. Irrelevant though.

Ah yes great I feel at ease now, knowing Sam Altman gives the thumbs up to this

That little voice telling me this is a very sharp double edged sword probably doesn't know shit

That's if the dust is caused by the paper.

Loosen ties means to make cords or ties less tight. It's a physical thing. For example, with your shoestrings, you can loosen these ties if they happen to be too tight. You can also lose your shoestrings, meaning you lost them and don't know where they are anymore.

You don't talk about emotional or social ties like that. You can lose social ties though, in the sense of loss. But you don't loose social ties, it doesn't make sense. That's the difference between the two words.

Okay some people are answering with Bidet as a solution, which makes no sense (you are not going to hose down the bathroom are you?)

A photo could be useful in diagnosis, but maybe not. It could be the TP brand, it could also be regular dust since you mention it gets behind the toilet seat too.

Are you near a window? The worst cases of dust in the bathrooms that I've seen were caused by debris from the window. It doesn't even need to be a large window. My money is on the TP brand from the sounds of it

Bring more homies, and more guns. What could go wrong?

The right word is "losing", one O, not two. They have different meanings