This take just baffles me.. you can disapprove of a war, and still respect people willing to put their life on the line for something they believe is right. Even in war, opposing sides have a long history of showing their enemy a certain amount of personal respect, even though they clearly disagree about something to the point of killing each other over it.

Your take is just condescending and unempathetic. You can respect someone for sacrificing themselves without agreeing with them about what they're sacrificing themselves for. Regardless, it shouldn't be hard to see how someone fighting to depose an infamously brutal dictator (Iraq) or a fundamentalist regime that stones women for wanting a divorce (Afghanistan) can believe that they are doing something good.

I want to respond to your edit:

wait for consensus before you publish, don't publish anything that isn't peer reviewed and replicated multiple times.

You need to understand that publishing is the way scientists communicate among each other. Of course, all reputable journals conduct peer review before publishing, but peer review is just that: Review. The peer review process is meant to uncover obviously bad, or poorly communicated, research.

Replication happens when other scientists read the paper and decide to replicate. In fact, by far most replication is likely never published, because it is done as a part of model/rig verification and testing. For example: If I implement a model or build an experimental rig and want to make sure I did it right, I'll go replicate some work to test it. If I successfully replicate I'm probably not going to spend time publishing that, because I built the rig/implemented to model to do my own research. If I'm unable to replicate, I'll first assume something is wrong with my rig/implementation. If I can rule that out (maybe by replicating something else) I might publish the new results on the stuff I couldn't replicate.

Consensus is built when a lot of publications agree on something, to the point where, if you aren't able to replicate it, you can feel quite positive it's because you're doing something wrong.

Basically: The idea of waiting for consensus before publishing can't work, because consensus is formed by a bunch of people publishing. Once solid consensus is established, you'll have a hard time getting a journal to accept an article further confirming the consensus.

I think you should congratulate yourself a bit: You didn't make it due to dumb luck, but because you were smart enough to have several redundant safety measures in place, so that even though two of them failed (cutting the wrong way, with lock engaged) the last one (face shield) saved you. It wasn't luck, but routine and skill that made sure you were fine, even though your brain was completely turned off that day :)

I think a central point you're overlooking is that we have to be able to assess people along the way. Once you get to a certain point in your education you should be able to solve problems that an AI can't. However, before you get there, we need some way to assess you in solving problems that an AI currently can. That doesn't mean that what you are assessed on is obsolete. We are testing to see if you have acquired the prerequisites for learning to do the things an AI can't do.

Please tell me how, getting up at 5 (and going to bed at 21) is going to give me more time than getting up at 7-8 and going to bed at 23-00.

Also, I would like to know why "society" thinks you are "better" if you exercise at 6-7 before work, rather than 20-21 after work.

Just speculating here:

Bak in "Ye Olde Times", it was said that the king was ordained by God, who is infallible. The king must therefore be infallible. As such, the King only selects infallible subordinates. If someone is sentenced to death by one of the kings subordinates (or the king himself), they have been indirectly sentenced by God, through his infallible messengers on earth. Therefore, the hangman is only acting as the "Hand of God", carrying out the judgment indirectly passed by God himself.

Problem solved :)

But you're not protecting the religion, you're protecting the right to practice it, which it seems like you also support. It would be strange to say "I will protect your religion" if you don't support any aspect of said religion.

Software is a tool. I develop stuff that i know is of interest to companies working with everything from nuclear energy to hydrogen electrolysis and CO2 storage. I honestly believe I can make a positive contribution to the world by releasing that software under a permissive licence such that companies can freely integrate it into their proprietary production code.

I'm also very aware that the exact same software is of interest to the petroleum industry and weapons manufacturers, and that I enable them by releasing it under a permissive licence.

The way I see it, withholding a tool that can help do a lot of good because it can also be used for bad things just doesn't make much sense. If everybody thinks that way, how can we have positive progress? I don't think I can think of any more or less fundamental technology that can't be used for both. The same chemical process that has saved millions from starvation by introducing synthetic fertiliser has taken millions of lives by creating more and better explosives. If you ask those that were bombed, they would probably say they wish it was never invented, while if you ask those that were saved from the brink of starvation they likely praise the heavens for the technology. Today, that same chemical process is a promising candidate for developing zero-emission shipping.

I guess my point is this: For any sufficiently fundamental technology, it is impossible to foresee the uses it may have in the future. Withholding it because it may cause bad stuff is just holding technological development back, lively preventing just as much good as bad. I choose to focus on the positive impact my work can have.

Since you seem to know a lot about this: I would think that at some point the purely physical size of a device is prohibitive of using shared cache, just because the distance from a cpu to the cache can't be too big. Do you know when this comes into play, if it does? Also, having written some multithreaded computational software, I've found that there's typically (for the stuff I do) a limit to how many cores I can efficiently make use of, before the overhead of opening and closing threads eats the advantage of sharing the work between cores. What kind of "everyday" server stuff is efficiently making use of ≈300 cores? It's clearly some set of tasks that can be done independently of one another, but do you know more specifically what kind of things people need this many cores on a server for?

I've also always thought it may have to do with social conditioning, but possibly on a non-sexual level. My thought is that guys are (generally) conditioned to be more quiet about intimate things, or things that are good, and more loud in "aggressive" situations. This fits well with the factual observation that men are less likely to talk about personal problems with a friend, and more likely to push the boundaries (be vocal) in an interview. In my head, it's an extension of the "strong, silent" stereotype, which is often regarded as positive. Women, on the other hand, are (typically) socially conditioned to be more vocal about feelings in general. I wouldn't be surprised if these conditionings bleed over into how vocal people are during sex.

With that said: I'm a guy, and my gf likes it when I make noises. Once I got used to it, I also learned to enjoy grunting. Grunting is highly recommended.

No computer algorithm can accurately reconstruct data that was never there in the first place.

What you are showing is (presumably) a modified visualisation of existing data. That is: given a photo which known lighting and lens distortion, we can use math to display the data (lighting, lens distortion, and input registered by the camera) in a plethora of different ways. You can invert all the colours if you like. It's still the same underlying data. Modifying how strongly certain hues are shown, or correcting for known distortion are just techniques to visualise the data in a clearer way.

"Generative AI" is essentially just non-predictive extrapolation based on some data set, which is a completely different ball game, as you're essentially making a blind guess at what could be there, based on an existing data set.

Holy shit, that kind of walk must be demoralising as hell... they haven't even removed the dead from the trenches.

I've never thought of myself as a conspiracy theorist, but if jar-jar being planned to be the actual phantom menace, but later being taken out of the role because fans hated him counts as a conspiracy theory: Count me in! I think the arguments are compelling to say the least.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

Check out the part on "privileged combatants". Specifically point 2:

(...) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (...)

If you're not in uniform- good luck convincing you captors that you are a POW, and cannot be prosecuted under local civilian law, which may or may not give you the death penalty for espionage.

I think you're missing a bit here: The Japanese were historically hunter-gatherer societies far longer than their mainland neighbours. The reason appears to be a large abundance of food and resources, to the point that the Japanese hunter-gatherer societies are believed to be some of (if not the) only hunter-gatherer societies that formed year-round stationary settlements, because they had enough resources to not be reliant on wandering, as other, nomadic societies had to.

Historians believe that the Japanese only converted to agriculture once rice strains and agricultural methods that were suitable for their climate had been developed in Korea for over a thousand years, because thats how long it took to make agriculture able to compete against the hunter-gatherer lifestyle in Japan, due to the vast amount of resources.

Source: Guns, Germs and Steel (Jared Diamond)

Cool! I didn't know about the pelvic tilt either, and it's interesting to hear that both mtf and ftm transitioners (is that the right term?) have similar experiences regarding emotional accessibility. And thanks for opening for questions, I'm going to fire off a couple right away:

Have you experienced any change in sleep patterns?

Any significant change in appetite? If yes, how? Both regarding amounts, and what kind of food you "crave"?

I'm assuming you don't menstruate, but do you have any kind of hormonal "cycle" that would be similar? If so, how is it?

PS. It's veery late in my time zone, so I have to sleep now, but I appreciate any answers I get, and I'm looking forward to reading them :)

         o
        / \ Morals
       /   ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
Money /
‾‾‾‾‾‾

Can someone who's more into gun stuff tell me why people are always talking about the number of guns someone has?

What makes 23 different guns better than one good one? I can see the point of having like two, in case the first jams, but based on my (limited) experience I would much rather have a single HK416 than a dozen of anything else.

Also with fewer guns you need fewer ammo types (unless you for some reason have 23 guns with the same ammo, which to me makes even less sense).

I want to add a fundamental difference in the way science and religion handle being proven wrong: In science I would say that the only "fundamental truth" is "anything and everything I think I know could be wrong". In religion it's the polar opposite: "What I believe is the truth, the whole truth and the only truth".

Thus, when a scientific theory is shown to not match reality, that doesn't challenge a scientist's fundamental world view, in fact it backs it up.

To me, that is what fundamentally separates science from other approaches to understanding the world (i.e. religion): If your most basic truth is that you can never truly know anything for sure, then no evidence can ever come into conflict with you world view. This leads scientists to accept new models and evidence, while religions prefer to reject evidence.

Apparently there have been issues when US and British forces have worked together before du to the "I thought you were exaggerating" mindset.

The brits have a tendency to downplay really bad situations to the point where, "It's actually quite chilly" means "We're in deep shit". I read somewhere that this caused serious miscommunications several times, because Americans didn't understand that brits were downplaying things, while brits though the Americans were always exaggerating.

what if I honestly dgaf and prefer that people call me whatever they want?

I won't repeat the whole argument, but I have to admit like it seems you didn't catch the core part.

You should be able to get food and survival on basic pay. Prices should increase slowly over time. Basic pay should therefore increase at the same pace, or slightly faster, than prices are increasing. The issue you have now is not really the current inflation, but that inflation has outpaced wage growth for the past couple of years. Price growth isn't a problem if everybodies wages increase at the same rate as the prices grow, or faster, agree?

Now that inflation has slowed down, wages just need a little time to catch up. <= That right there is an important point. You don't want prices to decrease to match your current pay. That breaks the economy bad. You want your wage to increase to match the current prices.

Another major issue you have is that minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation, that's a regulatory issue. Also your unions had their collective back broken a couple decades ago, that didn't help either.

Military manufacturing and recruitment centres are typically regarded as valid military targets, even though the people working there are not military personell.

You are aware that what Israel is doing in Gaza is comparable to the nazi treatment of e.g. the Warsaw ghettos.... right?

Take a step back, and look at the Israeli soldiers mocking Palestinian dead, mistreating the wounded and captured, and shooting at clearly unarmed civilians for fun. All this while they brag about it on video. Look at that and tell me that it doesn't give you a sick feeling to your stomach of the type you haven't had since you saw photos of concentration camps.

There are dozens of children that have literally STARVED TO DEATH in Gaza because of Israel's actions. They're dying the same deaths that Jews were put through in concentration camps. Don't you see the horrifying irony in this?

Israel is at a point where humanitarian workers from recognised international organisations have been targeted and killed, and they brush it off as a "mistake".

I cannot think about anything in the past 70 years that compares to what Israel is doing, and I hope beyond hope that some force will smite their government and armed forces such that the slaughter will stop. Because it is a slaughter. It's not a war when Israel is counting its dead on its fingers, while there are enough missing Palestinians in the rubble to fill a football stadium. It's just Israel wilfully bombing, burning and slaughtering, with nobody stopping them.

All this, and you have the fucking audacity to talk about antisemitism? Take a look at the world, and ask yourself how calling for an end to this can have anything to do with the religious beliefs of the perpetrators.

I've found ChatGPT is good for small tasks that require me to code in languages I don't use often and don't know well. My prime examples are writing CMakeLists.txt files, and generating regex patterns.

Also, if I want to write a quick little bash script to do something, it's much better at remembering syntax and string handling tricks than me.

At what point do people start rising up against these cartels? I've seen a video of some guys being scared shitless when they were stopped by armed civilians on some rural road in South America, only to be told that they were locals who were out to stop the cartels from robbing people on the road. I wonder when it gets to the point where that is a common occurrence?

Have you never spent your spare time contributing to something you care about? I spend time contributing to open source code and Wikipedia, previously I've spent time building stuff to make a local park nicer. I could definitely see myself spending time campaigning for a political party if I felt the future of my country depended on it.

When you're doing something like that, spending time on something you have a passion for together with others, it's typically more fun and fulfilling than tiresome. You should try it some time.

It's sad to say, but I feel it has to be mentioned that Leo 1 tanks are nothing like Leo 2. Of course, 49 tanks are always better than 0 tanks, but European countries should pull themselves together and get more Leo 2s to Ukraine asap. If (when) Ukrainian forces are going to spearhead through a breach or weakness in Russian defences, a large number of high quality tanks are going to be needed.

I've never heard about women's skin being generally more sensitive, that's really interesting! I always thought the difference in temperature tolerance had to do with women having a thicker sub-skin fat layer (might not be the correct English term for "underhudsfett"). Have you noticed any other physiological changes that you think can be attributed to the transition?

Sorry if I'm a bit direct, I just think the biology of the human body is fascinating, and I've never really before thought of the insight that we can get from people that have experienced "both sides" of the spectrum, so to speak.

Exactly this: I remember meeting some Russians that had moved to Belgium a few years ago, and we got to talking about this topic. These were well educated young people, yet they told me the thing that surprised them the most when moving to Belgium was that people actually cared about elections, and that elections actually mattered. They had been completely convinced that elections in the west were just like the "elections" they were used to from Russia.

Not only mathematics, pretty much everyone in the world of science/academia uses LaTeX. For git, I've seen some stuff, but most researchers that program a decent amount are reasonably familiar with git as well.

The UI isn't the best, but is it really that bad? I've used some adobe software as well, and I don't really find Inkscape's UI that hard to use in comparison. Whether it's pretty is another question.

Civilians not involved in critical military infrastructure are typically not regarded as valid military targets. Thanks for asking :)

A legal arrest can be violent. A soldier killing another is definitely going to be violent. Both can be legitimate uses of force.

My blood boils a little bit just seeing this behaviour described. Probably because it's relatable kids behaviour.

Norway has been pushing digital exams for quite a few years, to the point where high school exams went to shit for lots of people this year because the system went down and they had no backup (who woulda thought?). In at least some universities most of or all exams have been digital for a couple years.

I think this is largely a bad idea, especially on engineering exams, or any exam where you need to draw/sketch or write equations. For purely textual exams, it's fine. This has also lead to much more multiple-choice or otherwise automatically corrected questions, which the universities explicitly state is a way of cutting costs. I think that's terrible, nothing at university level should be reduced to a multiple choice question. They should be forbidden.

You'll survive for quite a while once you're below 6000 m. In free fall that would take you around 90 s, assuming a fall from 11000 m, and that it takes 200 m (5 s) of fall to reach terminal velocity of 200 km/h.

This is quite rough, but gives an appropriate order of magnitude. In those 90 s, you would be very likely to pass out and be guaranteed to get severe frost bite. We're talking major amputations levels of frost bite, as you would be moving at 200 km/h, exposed, in temperatures in the -50 C to -10 C range. I've seen people get frost bites moving at 40 km/h in -15 C for a couple of minutes with just a sliver of skin exposed.

So short answer: You might survive getting into the survivable range, but at the very least you will require intense and immediate medical attention upon landing. Seeing as there will be potentially a couple hundred people spread out over a large, possibly remote, area requiring this attention, it's unlikely that many, if any, would survive the ordeal, even if most people survived the initial 5000 m of fall into the survivable altitude range.

This may seem like splitting hairs, but I honestly don't think it is:

Military and police are groups that defend/protect their country, it's laws and it's fundamental principles, which they most likely support. Just like your previous argument: Police can defend and support the right to protest, without supporting the content of the protest. This extends to pretty much anything.

Doctors and lawyers can support a universal right to life, good health, and a just trial, and by supporting those things, it makes sense to help, defend and protect a patient / client regardless of their background, practices or actions.

In both cases, we could make an exemption for police / military / doctors / lawyers that are there just for the cash. At that point, it's basically, "I'm defending / protecting because I support me getting paid." and the whole argument is kind of moot.

I think you would be interested in reading a bit on the philosophy of Thomas Hobbs and "the monopoly of violence".

Send these people some more BV206! Gonna need them for winter anyway.