What’s the practical benefit of that? If the point is long-term storage, rewriting isn’t a priority (or possibly even a need). And this isn’t designed for capacity.
Persuading the BBC not to describe sperm whale clicks as “language” in their Blue Planet II series was the highlight of my science communication career. Why?
A lot of complex communication is going on in cetaceans, much of which we still don’t understand. However, I am convinced that we should drop the stifling and anthropocentric focus on language. It crowds out other perspectives on what is going on – for example, the relationship between rhythm-based communication and music might be a better way to understand the bonding function of coda synchrony in sperm whales.
We should be wary of ranking species on a single dimension relative to humans, as if all evolution is a path to something like us (much like early anthropologists ranked societies by their progress toward western “perfection”). Instead, let’s take ourselves off the top of the ladder and see other animals as distinct branches of an evolutionary tree.
I find great logic in the argument of understanding animal communications in relation to the animals themselves rather than their relation to us.
I think we should take serious action to make sure that it doesn’t, because if it does, it will be horrific. But, if it does, we also need to prepare for that possibility sooner rather than later.
An actual book stores more data than that and for longer. At that point, why not just etch the data onto a metal plate or something? 8K is only a few pages of text at 12pt. It could easily fit onto two sides of a small-ish metal plate, etched in 8pt or so, and it would last, potentially, for millennia.
Overall, I rate this a 7/10 troll. 5 base points, plus 1 for sticking with it and another bonus point for that shit about Ned Flanders. That made me laugh so hard, I almost broke character and called you out, but I wanted to see how far you’d take it.
Thanks for the practice. I haven’t had a good one of these since my Reddit days.
somebody has made it this far to upvote my comments….
if you hadn’t gambled your health and well-being foolishly by not getting health insurance, you could afford to work through these troubling issues with a trained psychotherapist rather than… this
And, again, you make a personal attack because you have no rational response.
That’s one way to look at it. Another is that, rather than truly outrageously throwing the book at these protesters, the worst they got was a massive inconvenience.
Now, I’m not trying to downplay getting arrested - even brutally so. I have been arrested at protests by some nasty pigs who beat the shit out of me, and I have spend nights in jail as a result. I know how bad that shit sucks.
What I’m saying is that it’s what they signed up for. And if they want to protest police brutality, go do that, too, but don’t act all shocked that this happened.
Edit: in an ideal world, protesters would be treated with dignity and respect— but if we lived in an ideal world, there would be no need to protest.
Just because you ignore the facts and evidence does not mean that they aren’t there. Everyone else but you can see them, apparently. And I really don’t care whether you believe me or not. I only care that others don’t believe you.
And only you are convinced by your arguments. You, and a fictional cartoon named Ned.
You were using straw man because you had no rational response to a discussion about health insurance.
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1]One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
No, you keep trying to change the subject, and I keep calling it out while staying on the subject of health insurance and the meaning of the word “gambling.” Again, blaming me for your words and actions.
You’re free to your “beliefs”, but the facts and evidence contradict you.
