The whole thing is dumb if you accept a premise of “infinite monkeys”. An infinite number of monkeys will type the works of shakespeare immediately, because an infinite number of them will start with the very first key they hit and continue until the end. (So it’ll be complete exactly as fast as a monkey can type it, typing as fast as simianly possible, with no mistakes.) You don’t even need the infinite time.

It only becomes interesting if you look at the finite scenarios.

And BTW, the lifespan of the universe is finite due to the eventual decay of all matter, including the monkeys and the typewriters. There’s no infinite time.

This is exactly what it is. When everything you believe is made up, it’s easy to accidentally make up the wrong number and then believe that instead.

I have a very cynical reason. If you look at what most religions say about it (against), you have to wonder why they all agree on it and it seems to me that if you off yourself, you’re not supporting the team. When there weren’t many humans, you really needed a bunch of team players on your religion making more babies, and the dead ones can’t carry out your crusades.

Now we put capital above religion, but it’s the same thing: we need workers for our factories. We need babies to become workers for our factories. Dead people can’t make cars or babies.

This feels like a case where botanical science should just have picked a different name. If you invalidate everything people think of as a berry and then tell them a dozen things that are clearly not berries are, in fact, berries, you’re just making the word berry meaningless.

Berry means a tiny, usually sweet, fruit-like growth from a plant. The kind that is usually picked in bunches. The kind that you use to make smoothies. That’s a berry.

Botany did us all a disservice by choosing the word “berry” to mean “a specific thing which invalidates everything you think is a berry.” Just call that plant structure something in Latin, ffs.

We’re censoring out the letters “wtf” now? Fucking seriously?

Thirded. Immich has no right to be as good as it is after such a short time. Completely took down my google photos, finally, and I still have face recognition, word search and automatic backup from my phone.

• uptime kuma

Mostly it’s just CYA for google since cycling is more dangerous than driving (due to the people driving), so there’s more surface area for them to get sued.

But yeah

• turns and crossings that look safe on a map don’t have very much data on whether they’re actually safe, because google has a thousand times as much information about drivers than cyclists.
• google sometimes suggests routes that can’t be traversed, legally or at all, by a bike. Same reason.
• sometimes google suggests avoiding something a bike doesn’t actually have to worry about. This is actually the category of error I see the most: google sends you around something when you could simply walk your bike through it, or ride through it, because you’re not a car.

You wouldn’t, of course. Hearing, the way we hear, in such an environment would be useless. We wouldn’t have evolved that. This is like saying “ultraviolet radiation from the sun would be everywhere, all the time, can you imagine?” It is everywhere all the time, but as such it isn’t a useful sense to possess, so we don’t.

This also makes some very weird assumptions about what the sound would be like. If space were a medium sound could travel through then it would–like all mediums capable of carrying a sound wave–alter the wave in many ways. Intensity, frequency, etc. But since we don’t know what kind of medium that would be, and since the comment doesn’t posit any particular medium, we don’t know what the sound would sound like or even how loud it would be.

I think those are all herbivores so I’d say he’s eating well, actually.

Biologists would never go for it. Nothing in biology is ever given a whimsical or off-color name.

The abstract does a poor job of explaining one of the primary motivations of this research: if Alcubierre drives can exist, and can be built, then it seems likely a sufficiently advanced alien species would have built them. We could therefore find them by detecting the drive failures associated with the hypothetical tech, something which is likely easier than actually building the drives ourselves.

Unexpected! Thank you for your research :)

What about “old as shit”? I bet that’s a lot older

Just don’t eat the brains. It wouldn’t be very filling anyway.

Completely facile argument, right there in the last sentence.

We can keep fighting for something better while still accepting this as an improvement over what we have now.

YOU BUILT THE FUCKING THING. Just turn it off and go away. Tada, we now have something better: no privacy-violating data at all.

Who’s forcing you to make advertisers happy? Don’t answer that, because I don’t care. You can’t pretend to be about privacy and then build things that help advertisers violate it.

This one’s also pretty funny btw:

If at some point they discover they’re doing insufficient aggregation or anonymization, then they can fix that all in one place.

Advertisers don’t give a shit. They have zero motivation to fix anonymization. They’re not going to HELP us get rid of privacy violations.

This kid’s full name is Fortran Sucksdontlearnit Johnson. His parents actually hated Fortran. Imagine the disappointment they’re about to experience.

I do regard them with terror, but this isn’t the reason why.

As an expert in technology all I ever see when I’m walking around places with technology is how fucking terrible it all is. It’s never wonderful.

Fucking guillotines already