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.

Ah, that makes sense, thanks.

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”.

Logistics is 4.8%

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590174524001399

How does a 66% reduction in co2 emitted per fuel gallon used barely help

Where does this figure come from? Is this in regards to e70 / e90 fuel or normal e10?

For the latter, I’m pretty sure that’s impossible.

It’s a failure of our education systems that people don’t know what a computer is, something they interact with every day.

While the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis might be bunk, I’m convinced that if you go up one level in language structure there is a version of it that is true. That is treating words as if they don’t need a consistent definition melts your brain. For the same reason that explaining a problem to someone else helps you solve it, doing the opposite and untethering your thoughts from self-consistant explanations stops you from explaining them even to yourself, and therefore harms your ability to think.

I wonder if this plays some part in how ChatGPT use apparently makes people dumber, that it could be not only because they become accustomed to not having to think, but because they become conditioned to accept text that is essentially void of consistent meaning.

Is a neural network that analyzes x-rays before handing them to a doctor AI? I would say no.

The term “AI” is already pretty fuzzy even in the technical sense, but if that’s how you’re using it then it doesn’t mean anything at all.

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.

This is why I laugh about people holding up the US constitution as some sort of sacred document, when the right to free speech and the right to peaceably assemble has literally never been respected ever in the history of the country.

Not immediately after the country was founded and the Alien and Sedition acts were passed.

Not when abolitionists were protesting slavery.

Not when unionists were fighting for the right to collectively bargain.

Not during WWII when people were rounded up and put into camps for the crime of being Japanese.

Not during the red scare or the civil rights movement, and certainly not at any point after that.

Looks pretty fun to me

Oh? Is the orange man building nuclear plants and high speed rail at a rapid pace and for super cheap?

No? Then can you explain to me why this comment is relevant at all? I’m aware that China has shitty policies in regards to some minorities, but are you insinuating that’s the reason they’re able to build infrastructure so quickly?

No? Then who is being oppressed when companies are forced to “tow the line” and complete a project quickly instead of stopping to sue each other and/or the state constantly like they do in North American? Am I supposed to feel bad for Guangxi LiuGong Machinery Co? Is China Energy Engineering Corp Ltd crying in the corner?

incredible government overreach to ensure every company is towing the same line.

Sounds like just the right amount of reach to me.

So they essentially hired you for no reason and then had to come up with something for you to do?

Companies and individuals play by different rules.

When a big company purchases software a team of people from both parties (whose entire job and career are based on doing this) negotiate with each other to decide exactly who is liable for what and to what degree.

When you purchase software you agree to let the company fuck you over at their leisure because you literally do not have enough hours in the day to even read everything you agree to, let alone understand it, let alone argue with it. And even if you did you don’t have enough bargaining power to make a large company care.

Wow, I’ve seen plenty of games launch unfinished but ‘unlaunching’ is a new one for me.

I mean I’m bit of an Ubuntu hater, not because its bloated or whatever, but because they’re too corpo.

I stopped using it back when they put Amazon in their start menu.

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.