This is so over the top that it loops back around and I love it now actually

“digestible” and “nutritious” aren’t social constructs, so no. If your body can transform it chemically in a way that produces energy, it’s food. Otherwise it’s not. The same things are food regardless of your culture.

I’m really trying to make this one make sense, but it’s just not happening. Can you rephrase?

Well, for the most part, it’s just flowing into the ocean, like it always does. Evaporation over land is a very minor part of freshwater loss.

Everyone is talking about dominant and recessive genes, so I just want to clarify a couple things.

The way your body directly uses genes is as a blueprint to construct proteins. Your cells are always producing proteins from the genes in all your chromosomes. It has complex ways of regulating how much of each it produces, but your body doesn’t care what chromosome it’s coming from. Once an embryo is fertilized, there’s really no distinction between “mom” chromosomes or “dad” chromosomes, as far as the embryo and its protein machinery are concerned.

“Dominant” and “recessive” characterization is about how those proteins affect your body at the macro scale, not whether your body actually uses the gene and produces its proteins – it always does that. For example, brown hair is a dominant trait, and blonde is recessive. But this is because producing any amount of brown pigment will make your hair brown, regardless of what other pigments you’re making, simply because it’s darker. Literally the same as combining blonde and brown paint. It has nothing to do with whether the genes are actually being expressed – the brown hair gene doesn’t stop the blonde hair gene from making its pigments.

Perhaps “always-on display” is clearer? Keeps it from turning off when idle

Chemists learn it without being taught linear algebra ¯_(ツ)_/¯

In some sense, the asymmetry of information (entropy) is a defining feature of the universe. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time

For the most part, they’re not specifically supporting the Israeli government. They have endowment funds, which they invest in mutual funds and other such financial instruments, like everyone else. Those mutual funds, in turn, invest money in a huge array of different stocks, bonds, etc, generally with the goal of producing a decent return with a minimum amount of risk. Buried somewhere in that pile of investments are things like Israeli government bonds, shares in defense contractors, etc, because political priorities are not usually a factor in how mutual funds decide where to put their money.

Sure, but now you’re talking about running a physical simulation of neurons. Real neurons aren’t just electrical circuits. Not only do they evolve rapidly over time, they’re powerfully influenced by their chemical environment, which is controlled by your body’s other systems, and so on. These aren’t just minor factors, they’re central parts of how your brain works.

Yes, in principle, we can (and have, to some extent) run physical simulations of neurons down to the molecular resolution necessary to accomplish this. But the computational power required to do that is massively, like billions of times, more expensive than the “neural networks” we have today, which are really just us anthropomorphizing a bunch of matrix multiplication.

It’s simply not feasible to do this at a scale large enough to be useful, even with all the computation on Earth.

“allowed” by who?

I mean if we go wide enough, Descartes was talking about it in 1641

“uncommon” is an overstatement, you can get them pretty much anywhere that has pots and pans. It’s uncommon in that most people don’t bother owning one, not that they’re hard to get

In addition to what others said, the way you perceive light intensity is not linear. Between your eye adjusting to changing light levels and just the way your brains visual centers work, it’s closer to logarithmic. Indoor lighting at night probably feels like, what, 10% of the brightness of daylight? In reality it’s less than 1%, sometimes closer to 0.1%.

Legally, we adopted the metric system in the 70s, so more than “a few years” I’d say

100% on the “lots of missing 'how’s” point. You skipped the “ban lobbying” one, which is probably the second biggest “how” after the gerrymandering.

Lobbying is not some official policy or process. Senators don’t have “lobbying hours.” Lobbying is basically just “being at lunches and parties that politicians are at.” Unless you’re proposing Congress not be allowed to go out in public and live as secluded monks, I don’t see how you “abolish” it…

The corporate bureaucracy is as much a product of the overall system, and just as much a slave to its incentives, as you or I. Though granted, the level of self-awareness of their role in the system is on average pretty low. With few exceptions, there is nobody at the wheel of problems like these. Worrying about whose fault it is is usually a waste of time.

It’s wildly under-taught. It explains like half of all problems in the world. Education: “teaching to the test.” Economics: optimizing GDP at the expense of non-material well-being. Maximizing shareholder value by selling out employees and enshittifying your product. Software: “data-driven decision making” optimizing short -term gains over long-term because they are more measurable. That’s just off the top of my head.

It’s still lemmy, but the mander.xyz instance is exactly this for science

Other than maybe a few very rote, boilerplate types of development, all this shit about replacing coders is almost entirely noise made by either the wishful thinking of oligarchs or credulous repetition of that wishful thinking by clueless journalists.

But it’s still a pretty rough time to be just getting into tech, just because of the state of the job market.