eggsmediumrare

One violates the laws of physics and the other does not. In fact, you have one behind your nose.

Seen is definitely a SW Ontario thing too, although more rural still. It's considered kinda unrefined I think. Same with "youse" like "you people" except "youse people." If you go further north I notice people talk in a exaggerated ascending and descending pitch inflection, at least along the north Huron coast. I catch myself doing it when I visit family there.

Ecological collapse, nuclear war and pandemic are likely near-term scenarios.

How about women getting puked on by patients and yelled at by doctors as nurses? I get your point and it's kinda true, but it's not as clear cut as you're making it sound.

I've tried vapor gloves, xero, lems, bearfoot... All supposedly "wide toebox," all too narrow. So far, five fingers and earth runners are the only footwear that works for me.

You live in nature. You might not be able to draw a straight line from bears to your quality of life, but everything is connected and if the rest of the web collapses, you will go with it.

It's a better use of space than manicured grass.

That's like saying increasing the internal temperature of a steak is a negligible change at a very large scale. You can't uncook a steak.

I think it's fair to say there's a conversation to be had about this in general, not coming down on it either way... but there's zero reason to throw that particular grenade here.

I will frequently ask gpt-4 "are you sure about that" and get an improved answer, so there does seem to be some potential there.

Am I an apostate if my concern about AI doom now outweighs my concern about climate change?

My intuition is that job quality (and compensation) will be reduced before we notice a significant reduction in job quantity.

There was a very thorough understanding of the theoretical harm, as there is with AI. Harm from the Trinity test was not shown until after Japan, again having parallels with AI considering we don't yet know the long-term harms that may occur due to existing, less powerful models. Would you mind sharing your contention instead of just telling me you googled something?

My argument is also pretty clearly not that pedantic. I'm saying there was obviously going to be harm by the detonation of a nuclear weapon, but it wasn't technically shown until it was actually detonated. I'm saying the same thing is true of AI. You can disagree, but it's not _that_ ridiculous to compare the two.