The fact that some languages have one word for something where others don't means nothing to me. What matters is if it's possible to describe or not, regardless of the number of words needed. Saying "Schadenfreude" or "Their failure, pain and or harm is satisfying to me" is the same - you can get the point across. Therefore, you can think it.

The real issue that matters is if it's possible to express a thought at all in a language but not in another, that's what's interesting. The idea of 1984 was just that, making certain thoughts impossible for lack of language. But that has nothing to do with everything being one unique word or not. As long as there is a string in a language, no matter how complex or how long, that can express it, it's fine.

Now, some languages can be more efficient or cumbersome than others, but that just doesn't matter nearly as much as being possible or not to express something.

Can't argue with that.

The problem with probabilities is always, imo, semantic. We call the unknown "probability", for lack of a better way to describe things. But nothing is random, in reality. That's where the issue lies.

If I roll a die, I don't really have 1/6 chance of rolling a 6. I have either 0% chance, or 100% chance - depends on how I roll it. If I roll it the same way every time, I'll get the same result every time. Rolling a dice isn't "random". We call it random, because we don't know HOW we rolled it.

As for why this thing we call probability doesn't change, that's the easy part. A die has 6 faces, and if we could toss it randomly (we can't, randomness doesn't exist), any of them can come up, and they'll come up the same number of times (as in, given a truly random toss, any of them can come up as much as any other). So we say if we roll a d6, each outcome happens 1/6 of the times. Doesn't matter if you rolled it once, or 1000 times - each roll can come up as any number 1/6 of the time.

For pop, sure. But it doesn't apply to everything.

I'm a huge Tool fan, and when they released Fear Inoculum I was very disappointed. After listening to it for months, now it's probably my favorite of their albums. It takes time to sink in.

It doesn't have access to current information. You're asking the wrong questions. For what it does, it's amazing both in knowledge and depth.

r/antijokes

Idk, what I know is that I (a man) for some reason read the chatgpt replies in a somewhat feminine way. For me, it's always a feminine voice. Well, it's obviously just a machine, so it should really feel genderless, so a big part of that effect could be in my mind. What does that mean, I'm not sure.

> Mining also has a problematic history, fraught with child and slave labor and male dominated occupational roles.

Lol, what? We're talking about mining IN SPACE, and you're worried about child and slave labor, and gender issues?

Of course it is. "environmental destruction" is only a significant factor in the way it impacts life. If there's no life, the "environment" is irrelevant. So it's acceptable to mine any space rock as long as there's no life there.

Your first point is already absurd. The moment musk leaves, Tesla stock will shot up. That idiot is the one pushing it down with its lunacy.

It’s far worse than that. You could pick that person from 1700 (or even earlier, any time, really, as long as they’re human), and of course they would be shocked by todays world, but with time they would eventually learn and be able to understand it. Knowledge is not the same as intelligence - we have much more knowledge now, but there were always intelligent people. They would be able to learn.

In 300 years I doubt that will be the case, due to AI. We will be unable to understand it, no matter how much we tried. Like teaching an animal to write.

It’s far worse than that. You could pick that person from 1700 (or even earlier, any time, really, as long as they’re human), and of course they would be shocked by todays world, but with time they would eventually learn and be able to understand it. Knowledge is not the same as intelligence - we have much more knowledge now, but there were always intelligent people. They would be able to learn.

In 300 years I doubt that will be the case, due to AI. We will be unable to understand it, no matter how much we tried. Like teaching an animal to write.

Progress is accelerationist. 10 years now mean potentially more in terms of change than 100 years in the 1500’s. Talking about 300 years in the future in 2022 is absurd, it’s completely impossible to predict a single thing. Likely we won’t be the main repository of intelligence by then, so it would be impossible for us to even understand it. You could get someone from 100 bc and explain cars and electricity to them - they are ignorant, but not stupid. They could learn. 300 years from now, with AI? We will be like animals lol. Won’t understand shit.

A person can be both. Elon clearly is. This guy, I suspect, just the first.

Mental illness and being "an idea guy" are not the same thing, my man.

What you mean, may? This is obvious. I only consider competition that which is similar to me, that which offers an equivalent, but better thing. If my girlfriend cheats on me with a guy, I’ll think “what does this guy have that I don’t”. If it’s with a girl, the answer is obvious - it’s nothing to do with me. I can compete with another guy, I can’t ever compete with a gal, if that’s what the other person desires.

I’m not saying it’s excusable - we would probably break up either way. The difference is that if it was a guy, it would mess up with my head, like I would always feel like it was on me, that I wasn’t good enough, etc. if it was with a girl, it would be just… that’s what they want, and we’re incompatible. There’s nothing I could have done. Much easier on my mind, no doubt about it.

Lol, come on, that's obviously not the question. Of course they mostly had one child per pregnancy, with the occasional twins / triplets. Why would anyone think otherwise, or even ask.

The question is how many children the average homo erectus would have, not how many children per pregnancy. I would say it must have been higher than current numbers (so, higher than 2 per couple), probably quite a bit higher, to account for extreme child mortality - otherwise populations would dwindle fast.

I'd be very surprised if it was less than 4 per couple or something.

"includes deprivations in exactly four indicators: nutrition, cooking fuel, sanitation and housing. "
Well, if that's the bar, that's not saying much. Most westerners would still consider the majority of those 415 million "poor". Having a hut, firewood, a latrine and some food does not mean not being poor. Sure, maybe 415 million are now not poor... by 19th century standards.