even_639765

7 ms·

1.
by even_639765 2y ago
Thanks for the info. Appreciated.
2.
by even_639765 2y ago
"Particularly fat" Fat contains lipids, not nutrients save the fat soluble ones.
3.
by even_639765 2y ago
No organism can sustain a high level of anxiety. We're talking about the purpose of the universal default state of mind. It can't be a state of high anxiety.
4.
by even_639765 2y ago
Does this undermine my point ?Or underline it? For the first 5,000 years of human civilization, slavery was an accepted institution by all peoples everywhere.
5.
by even_639765 2y ago
To say it's unhappy is not quite right, it's problem solving and running simulations whose goal is naturally and properly a source of low level anxiety - how to secure this organisms future well being. That wandering mind is cond
6.
by even_639765 2y ago
I don't know about the blanking out part, but the rest of the description sounds like a regular human being. That intense daydreaming is, while not everyone's state, pretty typical of people generally. People with powerful brains
7.
by even_639765 2y ago
It's called reverie. The stream of thinking that you naturally have when you're not deliberately trying to focus. Essentially, one thought leading to another which leads to another and so on, without you having to make any effort.
8.
by even_639765 2y ago
Your body requires nutrients to function. Deliberately depriving your cells of those nutrients can't possibly be good for them and likely does them harm. You evolved to survive such catastrophes of course, but the key word is "sur
9.
by even_639765 2y ago
It appears the prosecutor believes the defendant should have, or did, know(n) that ai generated music cannot be copyrighted. The defense has to be he tweaked the output in some creative way where creative is defined very broadly.
10.
by even_639765 2y ago
I don’t know, are these vids kept on an SD card or otherwise accessible via Tesla corp.? Why doesn't this same principle apply to home cams, where the cops have to ask permission for the footage?Seems like an obvious question. Tesla co
11.
by even_639765 2y ago
This. Knowledge can't be made illegal. Neither can speech. People have to grasp that tyranny is not an aberration of defective minds but a natural impulse of highly intelligent people. It's strategy to maximize their power, prospe
12.
by even_639765 2y ago
Most residents of other places doesn't actually want what the USA has. How do you know this?
13.
by even_639765 2y ago
UK law is far stricter than you might suppose. https://fee.org/articles/uk-man-arrested-for-malicious-commu... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-...
14.
by even_639765 2y ago
The US enjoys free speech, but its not self enforcing.
15.
by even_639765 2y ago
Another perspective of the same event. Had to read 1/2 through OP article to get at their argument - Otelli was innovative, but the deal made no sense for Intel. I found this article broader and more thought provoking. https:/&#
16.
by even_639765 2y ago
In the U.S., it's definitely illegal to listen in in any environment where there's an expectation of privacy. Disney recently argued that its TOS for a Disney Channel free trial subscription could be used to force the husband of a
17.
by even_639765 2y ago
I think the fascism you're looking for is in the UK and France this month.
18.
by even_639765 2y ago
You moved the goalpost. First, you wanted evidence. So I gave you evidence. Now you say you can't evaluate evidence, even the evidence of the people who told you to social distance admitting, under oath, they don't know where that
19.
by even_639765 2y ago
Not to mention that relief of human suffering comes mainly from technological advances and that, in turn, depends on advances in material science and basic science which wouldn't exist except for the economic incentives produced by a c
20.
by even_639765 2y ago
Masking does nothing to stop the spread of viruses. Neither does social distancing. Look it up. The vax was hugely destructive to healthy people and did not prevent transmission. These things are well established facts. The argument was nev
21.
by even_639765 2y ago
Fair rules that apply to everyone doesn't have any organized political opposition. The debate is about redistributing the fruits of labor.
22.
by even_639765 2y ago
People using Amazon is not evidence that humans don't care about the suffering of others. At the other extreme, neither was colonialism. In the first case, what you're looking at is unawareness, stiff competition for limited atten
23.
by even_639765 2y ago
But it can't be a thought experiment about humans since humans would not tolerate the outcome in the first place. Humans are moral animals who are compelled to act on their morality. One aspect of morality is fairness. Another is compa
24.
by even_639765 2y ago
The counter thought experiment to Rawl's is: imagine two worlds, one in which the obvious implications of Rawls's thought experiment were made law and one in which they weren't. Fast forward 20 generations. Discover that the
25.
by even_639765 2y ago
>Probably nothing short of much wider-scale urban reform than just impeding some intersections, is going to meaningfully change that. Interesting. What did you have in mind?
26.
by even_639765 2y ago
If there aren't large intersections, they'll go to parking lots, which is what they do in my town. If the 3rd time you're caught at one of these, you're taking the bus for the next two years, that would solve the proble
27.
by even_639765 2y ago
I have another take on this dispute. We permit copyright because we reckoned it incentivizes a social good. AI is a bigger social good. An additional condition of copyright should be to submit your text to the pool of text available to AI.
28.
by even_639765 3y ago
The correct way to read a paper is to start at the methods section and determine if their methodology was any good. If not, find another paper.