data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/12ec3/12ec3bf8073a6cb76df423face07ca7c3bd6bc3f" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/12ec3/12ec3bf8073a6cb76df423face07ca7c3bd6bc3f" alt=""
This has blown my mind. The article makes the point that they achieve this sentience with only 1 million neurons! This is so nuts.
This has blown my mind. The article makes the point that they achieve this sentience with only 1 million neurons! This is so nuts.
Agreed. Capitalism is interested in developing things that help capitalism acquire. Look to the pharmaceutical monstrosities in the US and see what they put their money into. Non- curative solutions that improve quality of life for chronic diseases. A truly free science might have solved a lot of these problems if funding weren’t so selective.
Burn it all haha.
Thanks for this well thought out post. Given me a lot to think on. This was a substanial work, so genuinely thank you for taking the time.
Agreed on necessity. I just mean, would having such a federated society allow for that kind of thing at all, or would it put an upward limit on how far society could go? I mean it’s all speculation I guess. Thanks for answering.
Question from someone uninformed on anarchism. How would an anarchist society do something huge, like for example get to the moon. It seems like that requires an intense pooling of resources and a level of coordination accross multiple industries, scientific disciplines, manufacturing techniques, etc.
Clearly bad faith? Curious what you mean.
Right, but that involves you holding the definition of bigotry as objective truth. You don’t think that anyone can have a good faith contrarian opinion to your values? I mean, life is complicated. People are complicated and come from a bunch of different communities or backgrounds. Do you think they should just bow down before your assessment, or do you think there should be some wiggle room to convince people of your ideas.
I mean, serious question. Is the goal to produce a pure echo chamber where no dissent arises? How far does this go. It seems like the end result of this is 5-10 large groups of peeps who have “aligned values” that can endlessly reinforce each other. I have a MAGA chud relative that spouts all kinds of nonsense. Is the best thing to literally exorcise this person from my life? I don’t know that a lot of identity driven silos is really all that healthy either.
Yes people should be safe, but that doesn’t necessarily imply that no one EVER disagrees with them does it?
Well…so far he’s done more for Gaza in -2 weeks than the Biden admin in +1 years…so here we are. I too doubt anything else good will come of it, but we’re still further ahead then the dems got us.
And now you know something about me😋
Added, sorry for the delay.
Added. Sorry for the delay.
Is linked to excess deaths? Technically it could be saving lives at a population scale. I doubt that’s the case, but it could be. I’ll read the article now and find out.
Edit: it doesn’t seem to say anything regarding “normal” auto related deaths. They’re focusing on the bullshit designation of an unfinished product as “autopilot”,and a (small) subset of specific cases that are particularly aggregious, where there were 5-10 seconds of lead time into an incident. In these cases a person who was paying attention wouldn’t have been in the accident.
Also some clarity edits.
The word rape doesn’t show up in that entire article. Must be some kind of mistake. I wonder why that would happen?
A measured response…
I get this sentiment, but it’d go a long way for people who have the dreaded “range anxiety”. If they want the expense of both systems, then go for it. I have a used Chevy Volt which is a PHEV, we got it a few years ago and didn’t want to commit to full electric yet. It’s my families only car and in our case it’s been bullet proof. 95% of our driving is on electric with only family visits requiring gas. It’s not a bad system for people who aren’t convinced. Different now that it’s becomming a culture war issue though.
Yeah, a couple of decades ago China was a miracle as western institutions repeatedly redefined the poverty threshold to make global poverty look like it was improving. Back then it was touting the power of the free market, with most of the gains being in China. Now that they want conflict with China, those numbers are no longer good enough. I’m not saying China doesn’t have a poverty problem, I’m just saying this is illustrative of propaganda changing the narrative.
Also, if its in human poo it’s already in the carbon cycle and so really less of an issue. The problem is bringing up carbon that’s been removed from the cycle (subterranean oil or gas pockets) and putting that back into circulation. Granted it would be better to pull carbon out of the atmosphere (somehow), but at least using poo wouldn’t be adding NEW carbon. That’s my understanding anyway.
For real though. The more we learn about nature, the more of a tragedy it is what we’re doing to the planet.