Rhaedas

We have most of them picking job security vs. asking the hard questions, and when a few do ask something beyond what’s expected from the officials we call them “brave”. All of them should be doing this.

Some of them from some networks are playing the game because they profit from it, which is a problem as well.

I’m just on FB for the Messenger, maximized to ignore the rest, since they make it all but impossible to use their network with third parties. Hmmm, sounds like Reddit now that I think about it, but FB did that move first. The hardest part of changing social media or any communications is getting the ones you want to stay connected with to use better alternatives. Again with the Reddit comparison, but look at how many stick with that still rather than branching out to a new thing like Lemmy. Or encrypted email.

But I agree with the title suggestion, any immersion of a single thing is damaging, and social media is by its nature and design addictive. If you can’t control your intake, you should avoid what you can altogether.

I note that in another reply you say that it’s about programming and not writing, but I think the same philosophy applies. Do something and get past the decision of debating what. Write (or program) as if it’s not for the goal of publication. Work on the side stuff like art or characters or core structures. Then take a break, look back and see if you feel that one is not getting anywhere. Dive into the next if you haven’t found the drive for the first yet.

It “wastes” time if you find yourself having to back out, but it also helps you far more in making such decisions than just looking at the choices and wondering. And at some point the “bad decisions” that you abandoned you might come back to later and continue or restart to become a success.

In short, doing something will get you somewhere. Waiting until you’re sure of a right choice may not get you anywhere.

I looked for a picture of mine, couldn’t find anything exact. There are so many variations.

Yes, it’s on the list too at 33 MJ/L. Lower than conventional, but still higher than ethanol. The usual mix for drop in use with typical diesel engines is 10% bio/90% conventional. It’s a good use of recycled material vs. just disposal.

Was that tractor a Tonka? That’s exactly what I had in the 70s, and it was awesome. A lever for the functional backhoe, and a working steering wheel for the front rubber tires.

Than gasoline or diesel? No, they don’t. Wikipedia has a large chart on their article for energy density of various sources. Some things are harder to directly compare with each other, but diesel has 38 MJ/L, with jet fuel/kerosene and gasoline at 36/35. Adding ethanol dilutes the energy output some, while pure ethanol is 24. It’s still a potent source (but with its own costs and effects that need to be included in the net equation). Chemically petroleum simply has more bonds to break and get energy from.

Or change the font styles. I guess they did, sort of, but it’s not very obvious. Like one in script, and one in Papyrus.

Useful maybe. For what purposes though… getting labor costs down, pumping out stuff fast assuming it’s correct because it’s AI, being ahead of their competitors. Useful as in productive? Maybe for some cases when they know what AI can and can’t do or its limitations. I get the impression from this year’s news stories that a lot of them jumped on it because it was the new thing, following everyone else. A lot got burned, some backtracked where they could, some are quiet but aren’t pursuing it as much as they advertised.

OP is right, companies will go the direction they feel consumers will buy more from, and if that’s a “No AI” slogan, that’s what they’ll put. There’s no regulations on it, so just like before with ingredients or other labeling before rules were set, they’ll lie to get you to buy it. Hell, from a software pov there’s a big thing now on apps being sold as “FOSS” that are not, because there’s no rules to govern it. Caveat emptor.

I ran across a series that used that same idea, only it wasn’t a game show https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_(miniseries)

I’ve switched the default search engine in Firefox to DDG finally, and I honestly haven’t noticed a difference in results. This may not be the best praise though, since Google has sucked for a number of years now.

Presumably meaning the percentage. Not all GenX went right, but I will admit I’ve been disappointed in seeing how many around my age did lose any semblance of critical thinking. And some of them very early, so it may not be age at all that’s a factor, but something else that affects people. Maybe millennials have managed to avoid whatever that is.

Sometimes? I wouldn’t worry about your unease in walking out of your bank with your money, I’d worry about having your money in that bank where they apparently give money out to anyone.

Seems a bit too easy if that’s all you’re doing without any verification. If they’re checking that you are who you say you are, then it’s your money.

I see your point, but that exactly was a coping mechanism for something that didn’t have a solution. Is assisted suicide a modern version as a way to deal with an unsolvable problem (and I’m all for it btw, just comparing the goals of both).

I don’t think they are the same as finding ways to avoid grief, which is what the topic of a replacement of the lost individual is about. I’m sure anyone in the therapy field has already explored this to find any benefits of prolonging.

But in regards about the claim: I don’t even know how far the cloning has gone, or how it’s been accepted. But I have heard that immediately getting another pet to replace that loss isn’t a good thing to do for similar reasons for owner and pet, and the cloning is worse because it’s pretending it’s the same animal (in most cases, I can’t say everyone). That’s how it was sold, getting your pet back. I can’t see how this can turn into a better route for grief when there isn’t any, and might turn to despair or anger when the new version of the pet doesn’t act the same as the old.

But you’re right, there’s no data, it’s just a gut feeling based on my own experiences that I’m still dealing with in some respects.

If anything, the AI acting as far as just visual is not a huge jump from watching old video of them from the past. It’s a bit odd, but I can accept that times change and some things become normal that were not. Having an AI that responds back as if they were the person crosses the line that I’ve been talking about. Some people think ChatGPT with its flaws is still a person, so they’ll fall for this being the loved one from the grave, and I still hold that living in that fantasy is not healthy for the mind.

A source about grieving and acceptance vs. refusal to acknowledge a death? Realizing that people and things die isn’t romancing anything, it’s being realistic instead of pretending nothing happened or that they’re “back” from the dead.

The issue of giving people ways to avoid grieving and letting go of their loved ones popped up a number of years ago when places started offering clones of your deceased pet. Even that isn’t a good idea, and not fair at all to the animal. But it’s not good for the mental well being of the person. Death is part of life, and pretending someone is still here is not healthy.

Never considered that Europeans don’t know the wonderful sensation of 110v. It can vary from a slight tingle (it’s not even tingle, but I can’t describe it) to a “holy shit” moment that throws you back, depending on how and where you touched it and how much current flows. The great thing about A/C is the cycle, unlike a DC current which can lock your muscles and keep you from letting go.

The Jedi Council was like a committee of bad parents. They made this happen and ignored every sign along the way. That’s why Yoda went into seclusion, he finally realized he was the baddie.

Plus they ignored the signs of grooming and pandering right in front of them from Palpatine. Jedi arrogance played against them like a boss.

There is comfortable, wealthy, and the super rich. The first ones still look at money as the rest of the population, while the ultra wealthy (the top .1% or higher) use their assets for power. They don’t have to concern themselves almost all of the time on price tags for things, it’s irrelevant. It’s what their influence can allow them to do that is far more important. So yes, the richest live an expensive lifestyle, but they don’t care.

I agree with others on the middle class falsehood. You either have enough assets and income to be able to live well, or you don’t. At this point many millionaires are not that well off either because their expenses put them in the same situation the poorer people have to deal with. Maybe it’s not only one paycheck away from disaster, but they have their own buffer zone that’s not as large as they’d like in bad times. Likewise, there are “poor” people who manage their budgets well enough that they are comfortable, but because they don’t have a lot they are at the mercy of things around them so that can disappear quickly.

The rich line is where you can lose entire businesses or a house or other large material thing and the money part doesn’t phase you.