Someone who doesn't have conspiracy-brain. The people that say capitalism is working as intended seem to live by the inverse razor of "never attribute to collective stupidity of the implementors what can be attributed to deliberate malice by illuminati-like mechanisms."
I think we should compare dogs and cats to good pets to own, rather than pretending the choices are "big powerful dog" and "environment destroyer 3000."
After all, both are safe in theory, but irresponsible pet owners ruin it. You can't expect everyone to correctly take care of certain dog breeds, you can't expect the majority of cat owners to give up the "proud to roll coal" attitude towards their cat + the environment.
We could have lab grown organic automatons, controlled via LLMs embedded in a neuralink. They will be considered non-human and therefore may serve as emergency rations. At the discretion of the tank commander they can be detached and used for eg minefield discovery, targeting consensus, or as "meat shields" as it were.
The more you give Israel the greater their scope. It's completely obvious that you can attempt to limit their ambitions while still allowing them to defend themselves and engage in limited geopolitical maneuvers. They are not going to bet everything on manifest destiny at the expense of self defense and keeping terrorist groups in check. Make Israel have less and they will prioritize accordingly.
It feels Kafkaesque. "Hello, I'm against genocide. Do I stand in line to be labeled a terrorist simp? Should I stand in the Nazi line? Just wondering what label I'll need to own."
Is it just me or does the report state that Israel is blocking aid? The legalese might make a distinction between 'technically blocking aid' and 'doing everything in your power to slow, delay, and otherwise mitigate aid'... but that's exactly what a layperson would call blocking aid.
They have to choose words carefully lest they accidentally trigger some process. But they did just describe what a smarmy country does to block aid while maintaining plausible (big stretch of the word) deniability.
On one hand, the point of Goku is that he isn't a good person, he's more like a force of nature. A lot of things he does isn't good by normal measures.
On the other hand, he's a messiah figure. He is the savior of earth, a god, and his actions have worked out so far. If it's bad but Goku does it and nobody can change his mind, then it's good.
When a computer reads some signal, the 0s and 1s in it's memory is the data. The data must be processed so that the computer can understand it.
This computer is using threads to read neuron activity. It must necessarily receive data because if it didn't it wouldn't be reading neuron activity. They're the same thing.
This data is processed so that the computer can make sense of the brain. Once it understands some activity it generates signals that can control external devices.
Here's an example. Imagine a device that monitors the heart and does something to fix a problem. The device would get data on the heart and process the data so that it can perform it's function.
Wouldn't monitoring health concerns and mitigating data loss be extremely important in these scenarios?
Put it this way: If you took a thread talking about some tech from a joke community, and a thread about the same topic from a generic technology community, you won't be able to tell them apart. People will bring the same energy and mindset to both. Jokes and "lol get rekt company I hate" will be pushed to the top, because they totally contribute to the discussion, while basic observations like "removing functionality is bad" will be pushed down. 👍
I don't think it matters in most contexts. When people are casually talking about it, venomous and poisonous are both stand-ins for "it has venom." They're not telling other people, "actually, don't eat spiders." I was just joking about the classic pedant line about spiders.
But it does make a difference on paper. I'm curious how you would express this in German: A black widow is venomous and in theory a healthy human can eat a dead black widow with no ill effects.
It was a Google site (from years ago) so all that's left is a random archive somewhere. I had all the local spiders+favorites, but the only original content were pictures of Latrodectus and Kukulkania Hibernalis. Beautiful spiders.
I'm not a scientist, but I'm the kind of person to keep black widows as pets and create a website that catalogues all the spiders in my area. I'd allow spiders being called bugs, or even insects. Even poisonous is alright but it does hurt a little.
The study isn't about community safety or gun stats, they said the goal was to explore opinions. Opinions are therefore the data, the facts, of this domain. Are you seriously suggesting that researchers interested in opinions eschew opinions and use (barely relevant) stats instead? Because people don't necessarily form opinions on facts. Which is why opinions are their own thing, and evidence is another thing. Two separate domains.
"80% of Americans think there should be more affordable housing in theory. 10% of Americans are willing to live near affordable housing."
Craziest thing is that nobody will ever tell you why they want dental hygiene to be illegal. They will say something like, "My favorite series is Harry Potter. I never saw him brush his teeth." and you're just thinking, "What does your favorite book have to do with this? Also I'm pretty sure Harry brushes his teeth -- did you even read your favorite book??"
It's an angler fish thing. Sometimes you see the nightmare lurking in the darkness, but usually you get the "some of the nicest people you'll ever meet!" facade.
Someone who doesn't have conspiracy-brain. The people that say capitalism is working as intended seem to live by the inverse razor of "never attribute to collective stupidity of the implementors what can be attributed to deliberate malice by illuminati-like mechanisms."