Is this abuse? Were people taking these boxes as soon as they were delivered, or were people taking home boxes of leftovers? I don't think I've ever been to an event of any sort which had ordered pizzas and saw someone just take a box before anyone could get to it. But most events I've been to which had pizzas had intentionally ordered extra boxes, and it's always encouraged for someone to take home extras in those cases.
#2 is obviously false - and #1 is obviously true, to me. Whether or not you wrote this comment was a decision you made. The only way "free will" is even an open question is if you can't decide what "you" are.
If you only allow yourself to identify with the highest-level, most rational aspects of the decision engine you live inside, then that's a mistake which will haunt you with questions like "am I really in control?" forever. If you identify with a broader sense of your self, it's pretty obvious that you are making decisions, for both rational and irrational reasons. Your conscious experience is part of what it feels like for a human to make decisions.
Nobody said that. It's on you for making the leap, whether out of hope or misguided combativeness, to the assertion that it must mean life, which I don't recall ever being stated by any of the researchers involved or any reputable articles.
Once again, you've converted "this supports [alternate theory]" into "it must be [alternate theory]." At least address the argument being made instead of a strawman.
Suppose I wrote a paper about how the low oxygen content on Mars means that Martian leprechauns, should they exist, must have extra-large lungs in order to thrive on the surface. Is this a sensible scientific publication? It's not wrong. It doesn't assume Martian leprechaun theory is true—it merely seeks to establish its parameters more clearly. I would not call it serious science, though. It's farcical. Any discussion of the paper should primarily regard the fact that leprechauns almost certainly do not live on Mars and so the question of their lung size is entirely moot. In fact, discussing Martian leprechauns as if they're at all a serious subject is itself a form of deceptive rhetoric.
> This hype around AI is gaudy. Nearly every implementation feels cheap, half-baked, and obnoxious.
is true but does not imply:
> AI is completely useless in almost every way I see it implemented
which is not true. It's just harder to get real value out of it than junk. And it's a completely new "skill" to get value out of LLMs which most of us aren't learning.
Fun calculator. A little noisy to make its points, but "You could die right now and Shell could continue operating for 6 seconds longer with the carbon you saved" is a powerful statement.
I wasted so much energy in my most vigorous years trying to make decisions that literally don't matter at all and felt so important. I could have been building skills to influence policy instead, but the sustainability movement was bamboozled pretty hard.
IIRC a full set of plate armour weighs about 60lbs. How is that not going to make you less agile (no matter how well made)? And yes, I understand the old trope about knights lumbering around, not being able to get up if they fell over and not being about to mount a horse is all garbage. And that 60lbs is roughly what a modern combat soldier carries. But it is still 60lbs!
> How is that not going to make you less agile (no matter how well made)?
Because the weight is distributed and carefully balanced and the parts are fitted to the wearer's body. It does in fact matter how it's made, it's not a backpack.
I admit I could have put more effort into my response, but at this point you're not going to spend 30 seconds to even look it up?
The difference in agility seems marginal if it exists at all. I would certainly advise anyone, if they ever had to bet their life on it, to assume a fully armored foe is not inhibited in their agility. Maybe crawl into a very tight space if you must.
reply