It’s the same mindset that lead to using dispersants on the oil spilled by deep horizon. It’s not about science, it’s about dealing with a problem that has no easy good solution, so instead of a good solution, just something is done.

Oil companies probably thought that people would be more resistant to buying oil if it needed special effort to dispose of properly. Maybe they didn’t even have a good way of dealing with it at that time and just hadn’t dumped enough of it yet to realize that it would eventually run down into the water table. Though going by how they handled realizing that burning oil at all was going to have a huge effect on climate, they likely wouldn’t have cared even if they did know.

Just like deep horizon wasn’t an environmental problem for BP but a PR one, thus they selected solutions that looked like they were trying, that they shouldn’t be liquidated to fund a real cleanup effort, and that new deep water oil wells were still worth the risk. Think of all the retirees that they are holding hostage because they put money towards funds that bought BP stock and derivatives!

I think that brain one was from a game of telephone with the real fact that a large portion of our brain is dedicated to image processing and object identification. Another portion would be dedicated to sound recognition with a decent amount of circuitry going into the recognition and parsing of speech. Memory will also take up some of the capacity as well as mapping desired actions to sequences of signals for muscle activation. After all the things our brains need to do just to accomplish all these things we take for granted are accounted for, it doesn’t leave much capacity left over for thought.

Though, at least in my experience, the most powerful analysis the brain can do is in the subconscious. So many times I’ve faced a difficult problem where I’ve been unable to make any progress, take a break, then later return to a much easier problem. Or even with skill development, try doing something too hard for a bit, then sleep on it and try again the next day and it might suddenly be easier. This works best for dexterity skills, I’ve noticed it a lot in Beat Saber.

So it’s like you can take whatever was left over from the first paragraph, then take a small amount of that and that’s your conscious thought capacity and the rest is given to subconscious processing.

I don’t. It looked stupid even in concept and utterly failed the window test. And that was in 2019, after the pedophile tweet, so his true colours were starting to show.

Cyuck, pronounced with a hard C.

In addition to what others have said about the worship not really being genuine, in the Bible, the evil of Satan (whichever flavour that story is using) is mostly tied to his defiance of Yahweh. By definition, their god is everything that is good, therefore anything in opposition must be evil.

The only time he performs unambiguously evil acts is when God gives him permission to fuck with his just loyal follower, just to prove to Satan that he would still be loyal, which has them both looking bad.

Other examples of “evil acts” include encouraging humans to seek knowledge, encouraging David to perform a census, telling Jesus to try something else, “entering” Judas so he’d betray Jesus (which was also a necessary part of the whole Jesus salvation plan), accusing Joshua in front of God and being rebuked for it (which makes his whole timeline questionable because apparently he fell from heaven before humans were a thing but he’s there to accuse Joshua so Yahweh can rebuke him and reestablish Joshua’s legitimacy in a time when his grip on his spiritual power was tenuous).

Because of all of this, there is a school of thought that says, if the characters and events in the Bible are real, maybe the whole thing has been a smear campaign against Satan because once you drop the whole “defying Yahweh is evil” assumption, Satan’s record looks a lot better than Yahweh’s.

But the more I look in to the Bible, the more it looks like a transparent power grab and hold. Which was specifically the reason Constantine adopted Christianity for Rome, because he was having a hard time convincing people in Iberia and Gaul they should be fighting wars in Anatolia and the Middle East and wanted to use religion to give a common identity.

That’s a part of it. Another part is that it looks for patterns that it can apply in other places, which is how it ends up hallucinating functions that don’t exist and things like that.

Like it can see that English has the verbs add, sort, and climb. And it will see a bunch of code that has functions like add(x, y) and sort( list ) and might conclude that there must also be a climb( thing ) function because that follows the pattern of functions being verb( objects ). It didn’t know what code is or even verbs for that matter. It could generate text explaining them because such explanations are definitely part of its training, but it understands it in the same way a dictionary understands words or an encyclopedia understands the concepts contained within.

It removes one of the angles that made attempting to bribe someone risky: they could just take the bribe but then do what they were going to do anyways. Can’t really retaliate legally without admitting you tried to bribe someone and if they told anyone about it in private, then there’s a good chance that motive will come out if the official ends up dead.

But now the whole process is going to be the official does the act and it’s the briber’s choice if they follow through.

Then each QA human will be paired with a second AI that will catch those mistakes the human ignores. And another human will be hired to watch that AI and that human will get an AI assistant to catch their mistakes.

Eventually they’ll need a rule that you can only communicate with the human/AI directly above you or below you in the chain to avoid meetings with entire countries of people.

I think the same about anyone who fears LGBT+ trying to convert their kids like they believe someone can be convinced to be gay rather than just convinced to accept their sexuality.

Like I don’t see any problem with being gay but it’s not for me. I sometimes think dating would be easier if I was bi, but it’s about as appealing as knowing it would be easier to fill my stomach if I ate sawdust.

So it’s very telling when someone talks about gays tempting them or that they worry about a gay agenda of turning everyone gay like it’s a realistic possibility.

So the rest will be immortal (going by Logan rules)?

That first one is trolling. And you might be right about it not being smart to goad on those who fear them as an existential threat, but sometimes people just get to the point where they don’t care about the consequences and just want to give some of the negative feelings they’ve felt back to some of those who gave them to them.

For the second one, did you listen to the song after the “we’re going to convert your kids” bit? Because they aren’t talking about converting anyone gay but converting them to not be hateful about shit that isn’t worth being hateful about.

On that note, I don’t understand how any straight person can even believe that converting people gay is a thing. There’s nothing anyone could say or do that would make men sexually interesting to me. There is no temptation I have to fight, even though I think it’s ok to be gay and that it would double my pool of potential sexual partners.

For the third one, I do struggle with listening to choirs, but the parts that I did catch sounded more like “your children aren’t your property whose thoughts and feelings you should control if they don’t line up with yours” than a “those aren’t your kids, they are ours”. The “through you, not from you” bit did sound more religious (personally, I’d go for more of a “from you but once separated, they are separate”). But I only listened to half of it and was distracted by the comments for part of that so maybe someone else can comment more on that last one.

I hope you aren’t banned for any of this conversation. For what it’s worth, you do seem more genuine about this than most who come to places that are as hostile to your beliefs as this place is. And I don’t think just censoring the other side does anything but polarize anyone’s positions.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a pizza place sell small pizzas for a decent value. They price them to not sell. I’m guessing because they aren’t as predictable for the amount of volume you might need.

It wouldn’t have been cheaper to go for bigger (ignoring deals), but it wouldn’t have been much more and you’d have leftover pizza for lunch the next day.

You cannot say that with statistical certainty. There’s about 8 billion people who haven’t eventually died yet and all it will take is one of them to break that 100%. You should include a disclaimer with an error range or you might get sued by someone who spikes someone’s drink with dihydrogen monoxide and then they don’t eventually die for botching their assassination.

That said, the statistics are pretty strong. 99.9% is basically 100% plus wiggle room so no one can sue me, so readers should be aware that this dangerous chemical can also go by the name of hydrogen hydroxide and some food manufacturers try to sneak it by with the name aqua in their ingredients list.

IMO you should post the videos. The context might make which case it is clearer, or at least rule out or confirm the “they are making fun of people who believe this” possibility.

The whole thing is just too absurd to do anything other than not take it seriously. Like I’m skeptical of pretty much everything you said there other than the drag queen part (though are schools hiring them or are some volunteering to do a reading thing for kids?).

Do you have any examples of that homosexual erotica in school libraries? That statement about teachers teaching kids things that have nothing to do with actual education is very broad and vague, but some examples would also be helpful, along with being more specific since that statement would include random trivia a teacher might mention for fun and parts of the curriculum that have debatable usefulness (like cursive writing), which I don’t think you’re talking about.

And drag queens are just men in dresses or other women’s clothing. The purpose of their reading thing is for them to provide a good service for children to specifically show that they aren’t evil delinquents who will predate children at any opportunity.

I wish it was that easy to protect children from predators, just picking some bad groups of others and putting a fence between them and our children. But just like a man wearing a dress or being interested in other males doesn’t imply they will be interested in children, a man not wearing a dress or being interested in other males doesn’t imply that they aren’t interested in children.

The reality is that we need to pay attention and communicate with our kids, and most importantly educate them about sexual stuff so that they can know to tell us if something does happen to them. Don’t you see that keeping them ignorant about all this stuff means that it leaves room for a groomer or molester to “educate” them? That treating homosexuality the same as actual sexual crimes when it’s not a choice could mean some gay people will decide it’s no big deal to predate children since they are already “doing evil” just by being gay?

LGBT+ people are people. That means they run the full gamut that you see in people who aren’t LGBT+. The difference is in sexuality and/or gender. Gay people like men, bi people like both, lesbians like women, trans people have a gender and biological sex that don’t line up. Other than that, they value and dislike similar things to everyone else.

They feel similarly about children as anyone else. That’s not to say that every one of them feels the exact same way about it, but that a similar portion of them are protective, nurturing, neutral, avoidant, or predatory towards children as is the general public.

They also use humour to ridicule the absurd, which would apply to the idea that LGBT+ people have a collective agenda when it comes to kids (or anything that isn’t reducing dangers to and increasing acceptance of people who are like them or otherwise marginalized for their sexuality or gender, though even that doesn’t apply universally).

You’re getting a negative response to your comments because the conclusion you draw from them doesn’t make logical sense. The most that they could show is that the group of individuals shown in the video has intents like that. My first guess, based on your description, is that they are trolling people who believe in the gay agenda. Second guess would be it’s actually people who hate gays pretending to be them to say this and get more people to hate them. Third guess would be that some LGBT+ pedophiles were emboldened by their own mistaken ideas of what pride is and thought they could be open about something that should get some eyes on them.

A preemptive strike is still suicide even if it’s done because early detection capabilities are reduced or lost. And a first strike against someone without early detection capabilities still isn’t a guaranteed win when the subs are still hidden and the doomsday device is still armed.

I think the play here is to make accusations about laws many on the left don’t give a shit about to bait the “who cares?” responses and then apply that sentiment to the laws Trump has been convicted of or accused of that they hope their base doesn’t give a shit about.

Kinda cool how you can see the DDR channel width in those images.

Yep, looks like it was fooled by the fake contour on her right cheek.

There’s another layer to it, too. Businesses are built and run with a combination of capital and labour, but all of the power about the direction and continuity if the business goes along with the ownership of the capital.

So not only do the owners decide how to divide up the proceeds generated by the business, they also have the power to completely change it, including who, what, where, when, and how.