While acting up is a problem in professional football, anyone who actually believes these players fall like flies at the smallest hint of contact have so obviously never seen a match up close, much less played football at even the junior level. Football can be a pretty brutal contact sport.

There are very well defined rules for how you can tackle someone, but those rules allow that 90 kg player can basically mow you down at 25 km/h as long as they do it right. If you’ve ever looked closely at how these players fight for the ball (or played at a decent junior level or higher), you’ll notice that most adults would quite simply be knocked to the pitch and more or less kept there if they ever tried beating a high level player to the ball.

Psssht. That just follows simple mechanics. Two orbiting bodies can be accurately modelled by a high schooler, how hard can a couple more be?

That’s definitely true, but the question is do the execs really care? I think that for a lot of these people, the only thing that matters is whether they can keep pulling those sweet sweet cash-outs. Just look at the absurd bonuses musk was promised from tesla recently. If he really cared about the success of the company, he wouldn’t take those, he would take a fair paycheque and allow the company to reinvest the rest of the money. Instead, he requires massive bonuses to keep working. We’re talking about the kind of money that could fund the entire educational sector in a small country for many years. He’s taking that out as a personal bonus, to the detriment of the company.

That kind of thing makes me believe that he doesn’t really care about the long-term success of the company. What he really cares about is squeezing out cash from the company for as long as possible. If the company fails, he has enough money to buy up something else that he can squeeze cash out of. The modus operandi is basically

1. Be rich
2. Buy some company
3. Wave your arms and wag your tung to get investor money into the company
4. Cash out bonuses
5. Go to step 3 until your cash-out has surpassed the investment cost
6. Either sell out of company (if it’s been run to the ground), or go to step 3 until it has been.

I honestly think a lot of the people pushing this stuff know very well that they don’t need it to succeed. They don’t really care if the general public hates it, and it flops. As long as they can convince investors, they’re pulling yearly paycheques and bonuses in the tens of millions of dollars. If it flops, some thousand employees (thralls) will be layed off. If it fails catastrophically, they might need to step down themselves, and move to a different company that “appreciates their ability to be a visionary”.

These people are only capable of failing upwards, and they know it. The name of the game for them is waving their arms and blabbering about something to draw in investor money.

I think it makes sense to be flexible: In a table, or other bureaucratic contexts, it makes sense to put the family name first. In daily speech, it’s rather common that I’m in contact with family members (even more so historically), and it makes most sense to use the distinguishing name (first name) first.

If I’m with a group that includes siblings or parents/children, I can usually distinguish everyone by first name, while many people share last names.

You may be right, but as with the trucks, I would expect a much less sharp minima: Smartphone and instant messaging adoption didn’t happen all at once, but from this graph we see that we’re going from a substantial year-on-year decrease directly to a large year-on-year increase. A change that is gradually adopted over the course of several years can’t really cause that kind of effect.

The minima at 2009-2010 is absurdly clear though. You undid 20 years of progress in about 10 years. I’m honestly shocked - what happened in 2009 to cause this? I would think increasing truck sizes would cause a much more shallow minima, since truck sizes don’t suddenly increase from one year to the next.

But you said the counter didn’t reset? If it grants 2 in the “second loop”, that implies 1 was granted (since we didn’t invert 2), but you can’t grant 2 (uninverted) and also grant 1.

If you’re operating with a time-loop recursion, you run into the problem of my initial comment. If you try to grant all three wishes simultaneously, you run into the obvious contradiction. The only way you get out is if you allow a time-loop recursion, but for some reason count the ignored guess as a granted guess in the inner loop(s).

Well if the counter doesn’t reset (because the genie exists outside of time and therefore grants all the wishes “simultaneously” from its own perspective) we definitely get a problem, because granting 3 makes it impossible for 3 to be granted, and we get the paradox implied by the comic

1. Do the opposite of next
2. Do not grant 3
3. Ignore 1

If you grant 1 and 2, then you cannot grant 3 (since 3 implies not granting 1). If you grant 3, then 2 cannot be granted (since it implies not granting 3). This is the simple form of the paradox.

You could argue that there is though, since the genie will grant three wishes. In that case, it operates like

granted_wishes = 0
while granted_wishes < 3:
    wish = receive_wish()
    granted = grant_wish(wish)  # True if wish is granted, false otherwise (invalid wish etc)
    if granted:
        granted_wishes += 1

So we get

1. Do opposite of next -> granted_wishes = 1
2. Complete 3 -> granted_wishes = 2
3. Ignore 1 -> Enter time loop (recurse)

-inner loop-

1. Do opposite of next (ignored due to outer loop) -> granted_wishes = 0
2. Ignore 3 -> granted_wishes = 1
3. Ignore 1 -> enter time loop (recurse)

-inner loop 2-

1. Do opposite of next (ignored due to outer loop) -> granted_wishes = 0
2. Ignore 3 -> granted_wishes = 1
3. Ignore 1 -> enter time loop (recurse)

… etc.

We get an infinite time-loop recursion, because we never reach the third guess in the inner loops.

This is exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about. You can confirm the structural integrity of the wings with a rather simple visual inspection. Same goes for the windows and landing gear.

Try confirming the integrity of (tens- or hundreds of) thousands of lines of code with a similar kind of inspection…

While I see what you’re getting at, I still like this XKCD. I work as a developer, and have also worked in more “handy” fields. The thing with planes, elevators, and basically all other physical things is that they’re limited by physics. A steel beam can’t suddenly decide to spontaneously fail or disappear.

With code, that can feel pretty different. With experience, I’ve basically learned to assume that there is always some edge-case I haven’t considered, that could trigger a bug. In a building, you can have redundant bolts, and over-dimensioned supports. A small mistake somewhere, a single missing bolt, won’t cause a catastrophic failure. With code, it’s different: A tiny, hard to notice mistake, can bring the whole think crashing down. Imagine if a plane could crash because the paint had a slightly non-uniform thickness…

This is the issue you’ll never get completely around with autonomous systems. A soldier can always figure something out, whether that is simply clearing their weapon, completely disassembling it to repair it, finding a new weapon on the battlefield or getting a buddies side-arm. An autonomous system will never be as versatile and capable of adapting to stuff breaking as a human soldier.

The major advantage with autonomous systems is that you can accept that they break and become dysfunctional in the field. You can always manufacture more, and none of your guys die when one of these fails.

With all that said, I would think you could get pretty far by just adding some arm that can slide back the bolt to clear/reload the weapon when you get a jam. Like 90+ % of the jams I experienced with the MG3 and HK416 were cleared by just doing that.

Horses are social animals that enjoy being active. I don’t know where animal cruelty was mentioned here?

“You have been deemed rich/important enough that we’ll allow you to bribe us”

Let’s be honest, that’s what this is. It’s rich people paying money to talk to those with political power. It’s a method of ensuring that those with political power can get a crapload of money in exchange for “listening to the grievances” of a select few. It’s an arrangement for connecting people with power and money more closely, while excluding the common masses from the rooms where decisions are made. It’s… corruption.

This is why people like him hate/fear regulation. Regulating this is the people’s way (in a functioning democracy) to put hard barriers on what these people are permitted to do in order to squeeze out another dime.

aren’t bound to Evolutionary advantage to survive.

That’s not how evolution works though. Evolution is a process that works a the gene-level. A gene that makes its carrier more likely to reproduce and keep its offspring alive will over time propagate and replace genes that are less likely to do so. This is a simple game of statistics that works regardless of whether the organism that carries the gene is a human or not.

Basically, evolution isn’t about survival. It’s about what genes are more likely to propagate to the next generation. You can simulate this fairly easily: If you have a completely stable population (the average person produces one offspring), and a gene that makes e.g. 10 % of the population produce on average 0.99 offspring, you’ll see that after a certain number of generations that gene is drowned out and eventually extinguished. Any gene that isn’t extinguished has survived because it doesn’t put its carrier at a big enough disadvantage to be extinguished.

I’m not going to remember the exact domain of the survey company we use, what are you crazy?

I agree, and have decided to err on the side of caution, and also put the irritation over on higher-ups. If I get some link I’m required to click that I’m not actively expecting from an unrecognised address, just trash the email. A couple times, I’ve gotten follow-up from a superior asking me why I haven’t responded to <survey>, and I just tell them I haven’t seen it and that it probably got caught in my spam filter. They send me the link in question, and I respond.

I quite quickly realised that most of those surveys they need “everyone” to respond to will just slide quietly by when I do this, so I don’t need to spend time on them. My reasoning is that if it’s actually important, I’ll get it through a reliable channel, and so far that’s worked.

To be fair, I also dump anything that comes from some variant of “noreply” to junk. I figure that if I can’t reply, and I’m not actively expecting the email enough that I check my junk folder, it isn’t important.

In that case, ok I guess?

To be clear, your post reads like a legitimate question, especially considering the community you’ve posted to. I appreciate a good shitpost, but I tend to interpret questions on asklemmy and nostupidquestions as serious.

As a starter, I’m extremely sceptical of modifying the genome of embryos (as I hope was clear from my comment). Like you said, there’s plenty of defects that can have advantageous sides in addition to the negative sides. My point is that the only way this could even conceivably be ethical to do, is if it was used to remove diseases.

I believe there’s already a procedure they do to remove a disease carried in the mother’s mitochondria. I heard about a rare disease from my dentist the other day that causes people to never grow any teeth. I’m saying that if this is done, then the only ethical thing to do is use it for population-wide removal of severe diseases with no known positive sides, and even that can be dubious (as you point out).