Repeated re-encoding loses information. “The compression algorithm averages pixel boundaries” is a perfect example of losing information.
That it sometimes results in more bits of data is a separate phenomenon altogether.
That’s the problem with the value of hard work - it’s hardly ever decided by the one working. People who are struggling or have struggled know that first hand. The value of hard work is the value of being held hostage.
This seems like a quick temporary pseudo-solution that removed an obstacle towards implementing some behaviour. Being temporary, it’s likely to outlive the feature it unblocked.
Moldova already provides free access to education.
Moldova already has cooperative farms.
So the tangible improvements are already implemented, so it would be easy to claim to have done something without doing shit.
This leaves us with a populist statement about pensions, undefined “active intervention”, “military neutrality” from Kremlin’s propaganda book (considering that Russia is the only maliciously military active group in Moldova for decades), a promise to “steal back, but definitely not from you”, and a “forty years ago grandpa’s dick was hard” bullshit nostalgia.
It’s the language I’m most capable of making a living with. It’s familiar to the point of being boring, I know what popular tools to avoid, I know my way around making Rails get the hell out of the way, turning it into a useful and handy tool.
I do want a chance at something that’s more exciting though. Some of the features I spy in other languages would be so nice to have.
Although I’d recently finally had to solve a problem where Ruby being slow was the major factor. Haven’t had that much fun in years. Benchmarks and second degree lap burns will do that to a person.
“We decide that it exists so it exists” is a terrible argument.
Consequently, there’s no “trap” in attributing it to neurochemical signals. Emergence is a known phenomenon, and it’s present everywhere. Asking “which signal is qualia” is as nonsensical as asking “which atom is a star” or “which transistor is the video on my phone”. It’s a deflection and misdirection.
I get it, people want to feel magical. But there’s a name to magic that works - science. Neurochemical processes are no less magical than some untestable source of experiences, with one big difference - they demonstrably exist.
You just replace that anxiety with a different fear.
I don’t fear oblivion, I fear it will keep me waiting. Not existing is a silent matter, living past your due as a broken, diseased husk or a person is a torture to you and those you cherish.
Death is a promise of rest, there’s no need to fear it. I’m a bit sad that I won’t get to witness most of the things I want to witness, but so be it.
Turns out, report doesn’t claim what the articles claim. What it does do, however, is engage in a useful “both sides are to blame”, “green men didn’t have official patches”, and “think of the children human suffering” sophistry that Russians just fucking love to spin into a disinformation campaign. Oh, and it immediately starts with authors absolving themselves from any responsibility and claims of having discovered truth.
When a car rushes your way, it’s a tiny bit bluer, a little bit hotter, it’s drivers’ phone is operating on a slightly higher frequency and it sounds higher. According to you.
They don’t measure emission but body absorption. Body limit is 2 W/kg, limbs limit is 4 W/kg. Apparently only the latter limit is violated.
For meat sacks like us it primarily translates to heat. At frequencies used, this radiation can nudge molecules a bit, which directly translates to heating up. If it was in a hundreds of watts, we’d be approaching microwave ovens territory.
The limits are there because there’s a limit to how much heat a body can efficiently dissipate, and quite a few sources of it. There’s also a concern that localized RF heating can cause cancer, which is not empirically confirmed. I personally care more about a confirmed issue of the nuclear ball in the sky causing one.
Every time someone confidently claims that we can cryptographically verify voting, they are deliberately or ignorantly keeping the complexity and necessity of verifying the verifier runtime, the data source, and the communication channels out of the picture.
Cryptography doesn’t solve voting verification problem, it obscures and shifts it.
You’re conflating “data” with “information”.
Repeated re-encoding loses information. “The compression algorithm averages pixel boundaries” is a perfect example of losing information.
That it sometimes results in more bits of data is a separate phenomenon altogether.