I wouldn’t lmao

I just think the headline shouldn’t sanewash him

Evidence linking Tylenol and autism not definitive “but very suggestive”, says health secretary Kennedy.

I thought you were talking about just opening the drive to use it from the file browser.

I do actually have a drive I use for automated backups, but I just used the GUI to change the automount setting:

I guess that’s a little bit inconvenient, but its like 3 clicks, adding a step to something I had to do to set up some other software. Its not any more complicated than disabling sticky keys in Windows.

Except we’re not comparing it to disabling sticky keys, we’re comparing it to needing needing to follow an entire page’s worth of instructions, pressing secret key combinations and entering commands into the terminal, just so you can use your computer without it phoning home to the mothership. And that’s on top of the fact that the instructions are probably going to be different in a year since microsoft is deliberately fucking with you.

I just click on it and it mounts and opens

This is Linux Mint btw

I just plugged in an old drive to make sure I’m not going crazy, and I didn’t do anything besides hit the power button, log in, and open the file explorer:

And its right there.

I, too, have wished to be able to easily embed prolog, or at least its reduced non-turing-complete version, datalog, into a less declarative language.

Also, I think integration with answer set programming for static code analysis could be useful. This is sort of a mid-way point between test driven development and something like the type level programming in languages such as Haskell or semi-automated theorem proving in languages like Coq.

It’s a tool, useful in some contexts and not useful in others.

In my opinion this is a thought terminating cliche in programming and the IT industry in general. It can be, and is, said in response to any sentiment about any thing.

Now, saying what sort of context you think something should or should not be used in, and what qualities of that thing make it desirable/undesirable in that context, could lead to fruitful discussion. But just “use the right tool for the right job” doesn’t contribute anything.

Suppose the pumpkin plant could be bred or genetically engineered to retain the desirable taste of its fruits even at very large sizes.

Would this even improve the caloric yield per acre? Or would the bottleneck be the available energy from photosynthesis? In other words do giant pumpkins take a proportionally larger amount of leaf surface area, such that you’re not actually getting any more pumpkin mass per acre than with many smaller pumpkins?

As I understand it normal pumpkins are already pretty high up there in terms of caloric yield, so perhaps there’s not much more room to push it.

I see this sort of thing all the time and it genuinely baffles me how people won’t cover up the entirety of the text they’re trying to censor. I’ve even seen people go over text with multiple passes of a transparent brush (which you can almost see through by squinting, let alone if you pulled it into a photo editor). Like, why?

I think I understand your main point pretty well, that point being “takes bong rip bro, just think about how small an atom is bro, like bro, just think about how many atoms are in your hand bro, dude woah”.

Up until my last comment I was trying to have a meaningful conversation with you about things like organization in biological systems, but you’ve done nothing but talk past me while jerking yourself off over how much more “aware” you are than everyone else, even while you admit you don’t even have the vocabulary to talk about about cellular biology.

And by the way, I’m not attacking you for “explaining things in simple terms”, I’m attacking you because you said a bunch of stuff that’s factually wrong while acting like an ass.

8 billion now.

Definitely wrong, although I do not have a collegiate off-hand understanding of biology to really fully decribe it.

Well, from reading this its pretty clear to me now that you don’t know much about biology. And yet you have really strong opinions on something you have no education in.

But it comes down to what does a “cell” mean in biology? Even your case in point specifies an object with many cells in it.

What are you even trying to say here?

Cell membranes don’t use simple diffusion to transport chemicals across.

They do for quite a lot things actually. Simple diffusion, facilitated diffusion, and active transport all take place and are all necessary for the cell to function. The ratio of cytoplasm volume to cell membrane area is relevant regardless.

By the way, you didn’t need to write an entire paragraph about homeostasis or try to define what a cell is.

I really have to ask… Why do you think humans aren’t so big on the scale of life? Your perspective really come across as human-centric. Not “bad” by itself, but still wholly incompatible with reality.

Your perspective really comes across like you’re high on something. You also apparently didn’t understand what my comment was even about. It was about this sentence:

You are assuming a red blood cell is a common size

I wasn’t assuming anything. In saying “correct me if I’m wrong” I was being charitable in leaving the door open that you might know something relevant about cellular scale that I didn’t. But I’m pretty confident now that is not the case.

I mean, correct me if I’m wrong, but IIRC cell size is mostly determined by the necessary rate of diffusion across the membrane and the surface area to volume ratio for a given size.

So, while there are some extreme outliers with more exotic cell biology, organisms having similar cellular metabolisms will generally have similarly sized cells, at least within an order of magnitude. Or in other words, an elephant is much larger than an ant because it has many more cells, not because its cells are much larger.

An exception to this of course being neural cells, which can be very very long, or very wide and branched (like Purkinje cells). But even within the brain this still kinda holds true. I actually know much more about brain anatomy than general biology, and I remember from the book Principles of Brain Evolution that elephant brains are much larger than ours, and actually have a much larger number of neurons, and that strangely intelligence seems to correlate more with the ratio between brain and body size than with absolute brain size. A possible explanation is that it may simply take a larger number of neurons to coordinate a larger number of muscle cells.

EDIT: case in point C. Elegans is about 1mm (or 1000 μm) long and has 1031 cells, including 302 neurons, which lines up with its cells being about as large as human cells when you consider that its a 3D volume and not a single chain of cells lined up next to each other.

Yeah, but its not made out of undifferentiated proteins, its made out of cells.

A human red blood cell is about 6.2 μ wide (though only a couple micrometers thick), so if we assume this little guy is 1.5 cm long that’s only 2420 human red blood cells from tip to tail.

IMO that’s pretty amazing and you should be amazed.

Yep, instead of a single address you should be able to issue keys that let people message you, and when you receive a message you should be able to see what key was used to send it.

And of course you should be able to revoke keys (tell your mail server to no longer accept messages signed with it).

Can it even be said that it was perfected when later we switched from carbon filament to tungsten, and from there to halogen-surrounded tungsten.

And on the other side, Edison’s lamp wasn’t even the first one to be mass produced and commercially sold.

There’s a certain style of education that really wants to draw a hard line between “before the thing” and “after the thing”, and credit its invention to a single guy. But really the line is quite wide and fuzzy.

I was trying to resolve the ambiguity between “this account” (which is indeed an object) and “the people here”.

I try not to misgender, so I have edited it to “they”. Not because I respect anything an advertiser says though.

Everyone arguing with this account needs to realize that they might as well be talking to an LLM. Look at how advertisers think:

https://www.goldennumber.net/wp-content/uploads/pepsi-arnell-021109.pdf

Just like an LLM can’t distinguish between truth and fiction they can’t distinguish between meaningful information and advertising BS. The people here will never win their argument against them because they classify all human communication as an act of manipulation, so the definition of advertising will be made more and more broad until they say “look, you were swayed”.

I didn’t know DMT came in vape form. What a time to be alive.

You joke, but it has been successfully argued in court that advertisers can lie to you because no reasonable person would believe that advertisements are truthful.