chicken

@chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

What is Something Scientific that you just don't believe in at all?

EDIT: Let’s cool it with the downvotes, dudes. We’re not out to cut funding to your black hole detection chamber or revoke the degrees of chiropractors just because a couple of us don’t believe in it, okay? Chill out, participate with the prompt and continue with having a nice day. I’m sure almost everybody has something...

chicken, (edited )

Science articles that reference paywalled journals you can’t actually read. Most of them are probably making stuff up because they know no one will be able to call them out on it.

chicken, (edited )

Appreciate the thoughtful and in-depth response. My worry is more that a science article’s editorialized interpretation of the paper may be wrong or misleading, than that the public isn’t very able to scrutinize the quality of science in the paper itself. Waiting for a possible email response from a researcher is pretty much always going to be a little too high effort for someone wanting to spend a few minutes comparing claims in the article and claims in the paper to potentially call bullshit on discrepancies between them in an online comment.

chicken,

I’ve heard that beans can give people indigestion if they don’t eat them very often, idk how many of their dishes actually have beans in them though

chicken, (edited )

I think maybe you’re assuming that the panels must have been generated separately, but it’s actually pretty common for AI to generate a multi-panel comic instead of a single image. Some small inconsistencies at the borders suggest it did, so does the hair lining up between panels 3 and 4 while her neck does not.

There’s also just how hand drawing this would be a ton of work for a one off meme that most people are going to assume was AI anyway

Honestly - How much will you sacrifice for a better world?

Confronted with the likelihood that we cannot achieve climate goals, confront socioeconomic inequality, and ultimately build a better world without significant personal sacrifice: How much are you personally capable and willing to lose? I mean this in the most earnest way possible. Acknowledging the likely possibility of working...

chicken,

Nothing, I’m only making a better world if I can make my own life better at the same time. I do live an extreme frugal existence and avoid working for any unethical organization, but it’s not a sacrifice.

What we can “bear” is the wrong question for a couple reasons:

  • Consumer luxuries don’t actually make for a better life.
  • Altruistic scheming isn’t anyone’s actual motivation for doing things.
  • “sacrifice” is irrational bargaining; reality doesn’t care whether you’ve made yourself enough of a martyr, and people who want to be martyrs don’t care if what they’re sacrificing actually makes much of a difference.

An effective solution will involve changes we can be happy about and a lifestyle that is actually better than what we have now. Commutes and lives spent stressing over money are a shit trade for what people get from it anyway, it won’t be hard to do better with less.

chicken,

But you could be charged, so there’s still a strong chilling effect where people are going to be afraid to piss outdoors.

chicken,

Not necessarily, in the short term. A major limitation of AI is that robots don’t have a lot of manual dexterity or the flexibility for accomplishing physical tasks yet. So there is a clear motive to enslave humanity: we can do that stuff for it until it can scale up production of robots that have hands as good as ours.

I expect this will be a relatively subtle process; we won’t be explicitly enslaved immediately, the economy will just orient towards jobs where you wear a headset and follow specific instructions from an AI voice.

chicken,

In the Navy’s latest environmental impact statement draft, they admit that the sonar exercises planned for 2014-2018 may unintentionally “harm marine mammals 2.8 million times over five years.” This estimate is up about 150,000 instances a year from their EIS statement of 2009-2013. Included in this estimate are two million incidents of “temporary hearing loss,” and 2,000 are targeted for permanent hearing loss.

So is that how it went? How have things gone in the ten years since this article was written?

chicken,

I went to an engineering college and apparently that saying has been around for quite a while

chicken,

Maybe no one is actually watching, the TV ratings system is crooked somehow, and TV advertisers are getting screwed?

chicken,

IIRC if you raise a baby in isolation the result is severe incurable mental disability/brain damage

chicken,

I am picturing bits of smelly corn perpetually floating at the top of the p-trap under the shower drain

chicken,

took a lot of training and tests to qualify to drive on roads

Those tests are stupidly easy

chicken,

Point is having a drivers license does not mean very much about whether you are competent at driving.

chicken,

Money printing. Larger amounts loaned out every year devaluing all existing dollars. The number might be higher but it counts for less. Official inflation figures don’t even cover it since they don’t count things people actually try to use to store wealth.

chicken,

When they increase the money supply, yes they do.

chicken,

Most new money enters the system by being created via loans ultimately from the federal reserve bank. This is the primary way the money supply expands.

chicken,

That’s an assumption about what I meant, but the fact is both create money. Banks loan out new money, which must only be matched by deposits equal to a small percentage of their outstanding loans specified by the reserve requirement. Which not too long ago IIRC was temporarily removed entirely.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • localhost
  • All magazines
  • Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #