That's some great programming there.
Erk
joined 2 years ago
My controversial opinion is that cell phone layout designs (not tech) peaked around 2010 and were killed by the iPhone. Don't @ me.
Oh we totally agree, I was just agreeing with you in a slightly tongue in cheek manner.
I'm loving joplin
There are some seeds there. Llms show that automation will eventually destroy all jobs, and at any time even things we think are unassailable for decades could suddenly find themselves at risk.
That plants a lot of seeds. Just not the ones the average longtermist wants planted.
No... Actually, the person you're talking to is correct. We switch back and forth in metric all the time, fluidly, because it's easy. The things you're describing and many more are normal parts of the metric system, and your flat assumption that it never happens because you assume it's too hard and unnatural is kind of a solid demonstration of how metric is superior.
A pill that treats solid tumours would be an enormous boon to humanity. You're letting really tired cynicism get in the way of basic logic. This argument would mean that insulin wasn't a breakthrough, because it didn't cure diabetes.
For profit pharmaceuticals is indeed a huge issue, but it's one that is entirely separate from whether or not a given medical treatment is good or not.
Really? If I could upload my mind, one of the biggest things I'd want to do is explore the real universe. Upload digital people into probes and suddenly we can actually travel the stars.
Came here for this
The ones bundled with the game are as easy as it gets
I'd join you for that malt but I'm pretty sure they're going to drag this out for the very high chance he'll die before he faces consequences, because they're too afraid of what will happen if he faces consequences.
It's astounding how badly apparently a lot of people are failing to read here.
To be very slightly fair I suppose the sentence fragmentation doesn't help? It should read "a dishonest premise: that billionaires" but, like, the wording wouldn't change. It's very clear and not at all ambiguous that the reviewer considers the book's premise dishonest.