I like how Sabrience got downvoted on first comment then made a super comeback with shockingly good insights.
It seems smart people expect others to read between the lines but when average people can't read between lines, same average people resort to downvoted then finally once smart person explains himself, they take his side
> It's very different from what people will do in laboratory.
It's really the same process, with but with noise removed. Genes are genes, they do not carry metadata that say they were introduced in a lab. "Natural" vs "artificial" is a kind of magical thinking one would hope humanity would cure itself of by now. Hell, if you want to see true masters of targeted genetic modification, look no further than viruses.
> Natural process is quite slow and gives you enough time to drop adverse crop.
"Artificial" process can notice and drop "adverse" crop faster. Also, the way all organisms live and reproduce, genes not fit for the environment they're in will get dropped over time. Living things have an energy economy in them; enabling one feature usually means taking away from others.
>It's really the same process, with but with noise removed
If it is "the same process", then how are we able to make a distinction between domestication and biolistics or crispr?
Even disregarding the literal human action part, the most notable difference is that the latter allows for genes to be moved between organisms even if the two organisms would not have done so even if given millions of years without human interaction. (Ex: Spider genes in goats).
I feel this defense of GMO's is weak, as is the defense of "It's the same food chemically." as some other's may claim. If it were actually the same outcome, then it would be useless as a technique.
> Even disregarding the literal human action part, the most notable difference is that the latter allows for genes to be moved between organisms even if the two organisms would not have done so even if given millions of years without human interaction. (Ex: Spider genes in goats).
There are really no such things as "spider genes" or "goat genes" or "fish genes", there are only genes. Some sequences are found in one species and not the other, but they do not carry a tag that says where they came from. It's akin to copying functions between programs. You may say you copied over the implementation of e.g. incremental search from Vim, but that doesn't suddenly taint your program with "unnatural vimness" (license considerations notwithstanding).
> I feel this defense of GMO's is weak, as is the defense of "It's the same food chemically." as some other's may claim. If it were actually the same outcome, then it would be useless as a technique.
It's more akin this: quicksort and random sort give the exact same outcome in the end, but one of those processes is vastly more efficient at achieving the goal.
You're conflating general descriptions of algorithms with implementations of said algorithms. I disagree; an implementation of an algorithm CAN very much so be tied to one particular program. If you ignore function call side-effects entirely (cache states, timing delays, modified globals, etc.), then you would be able to transplant functions from one program to another freely. Essentially, to make functions that are fitting to quickly transplant into other programs (in libraries or not), it actually takes intentional design to make sure their side-effects are limited in scope and predictable.
I think this is revealing of an implicit assumption that we disagree on. I do not accept this idea that genes, in a sense, are like functional-programming functions. Considering the fact that there exist genes that express only in the presence of other genes or specific environmental factors, its very likely that genes DO have side-effects in our metaphor of genes as functions.
> It's genetically modified through artificial and natural selection in sense of naturally occuring mutations in response to environment change.
“Conventional” non-GM breeding these days includes methods that induce rapid change by exposure to radiation or chemical mutagens; both because of the randomness of the methods and the weaker regulatory environment, there is a lot less knowledge of what changed are induced outside of the targeted traits that are selected for with these.
> Natural process is quite slow and gives you enough time to drop adverse crop
Crop development has used artificial process for millenia; the alternative to transgenics isn't “natural process”, it's a wide variety of other artificial processes.
It is not a natural process to domesticate, corn is not natural, cows are not natural they are human creations.
Again it a continuum, why is artificial selection ok but marker assisted selection not? If marker assisted selection is ok, why not mutagenisis? if mutagenisis is ok why not targeted gene insertion? What basis are we labeling one GMO and not another? Why are we worried about one and not another?
Comments on hacker news focus on improving humanity, not making money.
No one cares what will make your evil faceless company money, and sure we don't help those kind of goals.
Those product companies have succeeded at making money. Seeing that Dropbox has to implement predatory subscription and other dark patterns, the company has already failed HN.
Recently I made a successful company broke up with girlfriend. She always used to make me beg for little things while freely spent whatever was possible on my cards, living on my dime and still ignoring me. Always busy on her Instagram, replying to comments made by her fans bla bla. And with so called boyfriend has couldn't even share a paragraph of text on instant messenger let alone finding time for intimacy or dialogue.
I'd write her paragraphs of text and at the end she will reply with a single word. Even when in front of her, she would be busy with her own thing.
I've lost interest in women since then.
It's better to be alone than have a false sense of companionship. Sure others around me might think how successful I am and how I've one hot gal, damnn I never met someone as self obsessive as her
This is my experience so far, not onces or twice, 4 times already.
These days everyone is also self obsessed.
I just want realistic sex dolls, so no one is able to manipulate me in lieu of sex.
I feel incredibly sad and lonely, and now i am very bitter too. I argument and verbally attack people.
I also hate myself now, nights and weekends are incredibly painful and lonely.
I am gravitating towards drug abuse, hell I was a guy who wouldn't even smoke or drink. On the outside, people see a successful man with nice car/house and inside it's a demon which they don't know about and can attack them anytime.
Not all women are like that. 4 women in a row is more than just bad luck. I'm sorry to say this, and it may be a bitter pill to swallow, but you yourself are doing something to attract this kind of person.
If I had to guess, off the basis of this single comment, it is trying to attract women with your success instead of your personality. You mention how successful you are three times in your comment, despite it being tangential to your point. This is the kind of behavior that puts off genuine people, but attracts shallow girls interested in using you for your money.
First of all, props to you for being honest with yourself about your frustration. Many people turn their bad experiences into anger that sits inside and ferments into a dangerous and unhealthy brew. Recognizing what's happening to yourself is an important step in changing yourself and your situation. Saying these kinds of things publicly can often bring ridicule or condemnation, but I think it's important to start by forgiving yourself for feeling this way, because it's natural and not doing so will just make you hate yourself more. The way you feel is understandable, what you do with it is what will define you as a person.
Anyway, I've had some bad experiences with relationships as well and the thing that is helping the most is therapy. I highly recommend it, it is the best money I ever spent and I think of it as an investment in my future, similar to putting money in a 401k.
I don't recommend hookers like a sibling comment did, not for moral reasons but because I don't think it'll solve your problem. I'm also lonely and often just wish I could have sex, and I can relate to what you say about wishing a sex doll could just replace your bed for a real woman. But then I had some opportunities for no-strings-attached sex and learned something about myself : turns out I want intimacy, not just sex. For many of us, sex in our minds represents an emotional connection we crave. And having sex with someone who doesn't care about you feels like shit when what you really need is someone in your life who gives a damn.
But maybe you have to learn that for yourself, and maybe your experience will be different than mine. If you're going to try transactional intimacy, maybe start with something a bit less extreme like lapdances from strippers. You might learn something about yourself. And depending on whether you are, there's less legal risk and certainly less health risk involved.
In any case, I do believe that it's possible to get to a better place. My experience was that therapy worked best, YMMV. Good luck.
That's not a girlfriend, it's someone taking advantage of you.
My suggestion is to read "Models: Attract Women though Honesty", by far the best book on how to be a better man, and possibly the best bet on changing your thought processes for the better (in addition to therapy, possibly).
If you feel like you really need sex to be happy, hire escorts: the ones that are well reviewed online are generally far better people than the women you describe, and will deliver what you agree upon with no manipulation.
Keeping a "girlfriend" such as clanrebornwow's will also cost you a lotta money, in addition to the psychological cost. At least with escorts the transaction is clearer and better-defined.
I expect Google can help you out with "escort reviews <location>" for wherever your area of interest happens to be.
Hey man, send me a PM, I know what you’re going through after living in a similarly-superficial environment. It’s just important to understand cognitive biases and how it perceives our outlook on the world.
Needless to say, if you continue to have that mentality it will only continue with a self fulfilling prophecy.
CBT would be an effective technique to help you learn about these thought processes and address them at their core. Often the crux of the problem isn’t as transparent as you’d think.
It seems smart people expect others to read between the lines but when average people can't read between lines, same average people resort to downvoted then finally once smart person explains himself, they take his side