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.

The top dude isn’t homophobic, he just doesnt suppprt marriage between Americans and Europeans.

This is an idea from the 1960s back when they thought solar panels would be like computer chips and remain super expensive in terms of area but become exponentially better at the amount of sunlight they could convert into electricity.

It makes absolutely zero sense to spend billions of dollars putting solar panels in space and beaming the power back to earth now that they are so cheap per unit area. The one thing you could argue a space based solar array could do would be to stretch out the day length so you need less storage, but that’s easier to accomplish using long electrical cables.

I’m not sure if you realize, but my comment was agreeing with yours.

One could argue that “god” and “man” (as in humanity) are pretty important concepts, and dogs and cats were probably more important to our ancestors than they are now.

But then there are words like gel, mop, wig, tug, and dam that kinda make that fall apart again.

I actually wonder how long it would take to notice if all your mRNA stopped working.

I don’t think neuron action potentials rely directly on mRNA, so I think you’d be able to keep thinking for a bit, and probably moving your muscles too. The closest comparable thing is people that received massive radiation doses (can’t make new RNA out of shredded DNA) and in those cases it takes a bit before you start melting.

I mean, the gravitational gradient is much higher. To me this kind of sounds like saying “there’s nothing that special about a 10 watt laser, an LED lightbulb puts out the same amount of light”, but a 10 watt laser is enough to instantly and permanently blind you.

Its true that there’s nothing that special about orbiting a black hole, but I think its not really logically inconsistent (inasmuch as a superhero can be logically consistent) to say “even if superman could survive dipping into a sun he probably wouldn’t be too happy if he stuck his arm into an event horizon”.

However, this fuckin’ half-in/half-out state has become the engine of a manifold of security issues, primarily bc nobody but nerds or industry specialists knows that much about it yet. That has led to rushed, busy, or just plain lazy devs and engineers to either keep IPv6 sockets listening, unguarded, or to just block them outright and redirect traffic to IPv4 anyway.

Its kind of interesting to me how conservative the IT industry is with stuff like this.

The industry loves to say “move fast and break things” or “innovate and disrupt”, but that generally only applies to things that can be shat out in a two week long Python project (or shat out in 2 weeks after publicly funded universities spent years figuring out the algorithm for you). For anything foundational, like CPU architecture, operating systems, or the basic assumptions about how UI should work, they’re terrified of change.

I understand your frustration and I apologize for reading into your comments something you didn’t mean. I, too, wish people would say what they mean and mean what they say, and that when you say something its taken to mean what you said.

Unfortunately very often people will make a very reasonable (even factually true) point as a preamble to support something very unreasonable. If you agree with the reasonable point the person will then act like you agree with the unreasonable one. This is not only more time consuming and tiring to argue against, it also lends a great deal more credibility to the unreasonable point than it is really owed. To the uninformed reader to looks like the two sides of the argument partially agree, when nothing could be further from the truth. Its immensely frustrating to have your words used against you like this, so many people try and preempt it by jumping straight to (what they assume to be) the unreasonable point and arguing against it directly.

This is toxic for actual discussion. It means that good faith actors have to add all sorts of qualifications and clarifications about where they stand before they say anything about anything, which is tiring in itself. But its the world that we live in. If someone makes an unqualified comment about the CO2 emissions of volcanoes in a thread about anthropogenic climate change people are going to assume that they don’t think climate change is real. And, operating that way, those people will be right more often than they’re wrong.

Then you should probably be a little more explicit about that, because I have never, not once in my life, heard someone say “well you know wearing a seatbelt doesn’t guarantee you’ll survive a car crash” and not follow it up with “that’s why seatbelts are stupid and I’m not going to wear one”.

I want you to imagine that your comments in this thread were written by an engineer or a surgeon instead of a programmer.

Imagine an engineer saying “Sure, you can calculate the strength of a bridge design based on known material properties and prove that it can hold the design weight, it that doesn’t automatically mean that the design will be safer than one where you don’t do that”. Or “why should I have to prove that my design is safe when the materials could be defective and cause a collapse anyway?”

Or a surgeon saying “just because you can use a checklist to prove that all your tools are accounted for and you didn’t leave anything inside the patient’s body doesn’t mean that you’re going to automatically leave something in there if you don’t have a checklist”. Or “washing your hands isn’t a guarantee that the patient isn’t going to get an infection, they could get infected some other way too”.

A doctor or engineer acting like this would get them fired, sued, and maybe even criminally prosecuted, in that order. This is not the mentality of a professional, and it is something that programming as a profession needs to grow out of.

I remember the days when bugs in x86 CPUs were almost unheard of. The Pentium FDIV bug and the F00F bug were considered these unicorn things.

This is the case for a lot of inventions.

Distributed computing would eliminate the water usage, since the heat output wouldn’t be so highly concentrated, but it would probably somewhat increase power consumption.

In an ideal world I think data center waste heat would be captured for use in a district thermal grid / seasonal thermal energy store like the one in Vantaa.

Of course that isn’t to say that we shouldn’t be thinking about whether we’re using software efficiently and for good reasons. Plenty of computations that take place in datacenters serve to make a company money but don’t actually make anyone’s lives better.

There are actually some fossils of dinosaur mummies, a rare preservation of a rare preservation. For some species these give us direct evidence of their physical appearance beyond their bone structure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_mummy

Phones can figure out its location using gyroscopes and accelerometer

This is plainly false.

The error stack-up from the imprecision of a phone’s MEMS sensors would make positioning basically impossible after a couple of dozen feet, let alone after hours of walking around.

There are experimental inertial navigation systems that can do what you describe, but they use ultra sensitive magnetometers to detect tiny changes in the behavior of laser suspended ultra cold gas clouds that are only a few hundred atoms large. That is not inside your phone.

Yeah, I really wish it wasn’t like this, but replacing a phone’s OS is a lot more like flashing a custom bios than installing an OS on a hard drive.