darby_nine

You'd think if intelligence were that interesting we'd be able to agree on, like, any attribute of it. The best we can do is IQ and let me assure you there's enough high iq morons that intelligence not a difficult myth to dispel.

Now stupidity—that's something that really sets us apart from animals.

I tend to think that destroying the nazis and the empire of japan was worth the extremely high cost. I'd hazard a guess that most ukrainians and russians and koreans and chinese and a whole swath of southeast asian peoples would agree.

Anyway, it's not a valid comparison when we're actively refusing to get involved in the conflict in any way that would risk our imperial interests.

> So OSS aside (which has its own complicated economics)

Assuming you're actually referring to free software and not open source software, it really doesn't, though. It's straight up better in every way than service-oriented software and commercial software in every way... except actually compensating developers. I'd work for a pittance writing free software if there were any institutional support for it. But who wants to kill the golden goose, even if it means our lives would all be greatly improved?

That's not "complicated", this is the opportunity to make a shit ton of money by charging people for software despite insignificant marginal costs. Even if it means humanity writes the same goddamn software over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, mostly shittier than the last iteration.

I highly recommend this movie if only because it's a hilarious combination of excellent production value, terrible acting, and some of the most boring and openly delusional film you'll ever witness.

The term end-user does not refer to advertisers by definition. Typically most people use the term "user" to refer to humans.

You're not wrong, but advertisers are a cancer on society that not only do not contribute any value but actively destroy the world around us. it's difficult to assign anything but deeply negative value to their needs and concerns.

Eh, it depends on the situation in question. Social acceptance (if this is even possible) will cost some people far more than it can benefit them. Any behavior, principle, or value will inherently make some portion of the population not want to be around you. This is why I recommend always starting with values and building up social acceptance from there.

This might be the first positive thing I've ever heard someone say about at&t. Mad props for distributing phones though! If you wrote up even a brief guide as to how to do this and common pitfalls I'd do the same in my area.

My god the future sucks far more than we could have ever imagined. Imagine being sold a chatbot and being told it's an android!

A metaphor with another physical object will always fall short. Why not just state the number of bits a particle represents? It's much easier to describe going through each dimension (colloqiual, I hate string theory for the same reason of unnecessarily using a physical analogy) and describing how it interacts with other particles. Sure you'll lose a lot of your audience but those that remain will have a much clearer picture than via a comparison to a billiard ball. This also makes the more advanced topics like singularities, entanglement, teleportation, the lack of true vacuum, etc much easier to manage.

(I'm aware we don't have an understanding of how quantum physics interacts with singularities, but the whole billiard ball metaphor certainly is incoherent with it)

> 2 vs 3

Is this really still relevant? I've been using only python3 for well over a decade now and I can't remember the last time anyone even suggested I use python2. the rest of your critiques ring true though.