This isn't a place to make formal scientific inquiry, and that's not the way to ask scientific questions formally. The way to do that is to write a paper to a journal citing findings that appear to contradict whatever hypothesis is in dispute.
If you ask a question about science to a random person on the Internet they're entirely within their right to say "I don't think you actually want to learn something you don't know, I think you're asking your question to put forward an argument that I've seen many people before you put forward and that I'm tired of hearing, and therefore I'm not going to humor you by answering your question", until you convince them that talking to you isn't a complete waste of time.
I'll take a stab at it: a multicellular organism dies when the processes that are able to sustain the operation of the cell community cease, thus causing the individual cells to die individually or to live as single-celled organisms in the wild for a short while. The main processes that are essential to the life of an organism as a whole are the supply of nutrients and oxygen, the elimination of waste, and the coordination of various support activities between different groups of cells in the body. They're essential because most of the cells have delegated the capacity to perform these functions to the organism, allowing an increase in efficiency at the cost of tying their survival to the survival of the organism.
A cell dies when it's damaged mechanically or chemically, or when it's unable to sustain its metabolism thus causing chemical damage, or when its programming instructs it to destroy itself for whatever reason.
Is it? I think it's a symptom of lack of science and math education. No one who understands both of them would think that either is proof that the other one is "fake".
Chemical processes are not random, at least not in the way you're using the word. When you mix a base and an acid it's not subject to a roll of the dice whether they will neutralize or not. If you pour oil into water there's not a small chance that this one time they will dissolve into each other.
>We know that's what a cell is. But how do random chemical processes get there?
Work backwards. Think of the simplest cell you can. Now remove the membrane and the little molecular machines are free to wander in the medium arbitrarily far away from each other. The chemical processes are still happening, but they just take a long time to finish. All you need is for the abiotic medium to contain at least one of every of those molecules to have a sort of diffuse protolife.
To be honest, the scouring is one of my favorite bits because it shows how much the main hobbits have grown over the course of their adventure. I think the multiple endings thing worked better in the book for multiple reasons. For one, you could tell at any time that there was still a considerable chunk left to go, so the narrative didn't create any false expectation that it was about to end. But also, unlike in the movie where it does the usual swelling soundtrack and post-climax wrap-up like it's about to finish but then just continues and does it again, I feel like the book doesn't do a literary equivalent of that at all. It doesn't feel like multiple endings, but rather multiple conclusions to separate story arcs, which is something the books do all throughout. The book is just forced to cram several right at the end, because it has to finish somehow. It's unfortunate that the structure didn't translate well to the big screen, at least not without cutting things out.
I think it's more a matter of investment vs. payoff. I read TLotR from beginning to end once and I liked it, but it's such a time sink for so little payoff that I wouldn't do it again. There's so much else I could do with that time instead. I'd rather put the movies in the background while I do something else over the course of nine hours, or maybe reread a specific bit I liked. It's not about instant gratification, it's that we're no longer constrained in our media selection. 70 years ago you might have reread the books right after finishing them because you had nothing else to do. That's not true today.
What you're mentioning has little to do with technology and nothing to do with attention span. Those books just don't give you anything you want. Well, why read them? I think microprocessors are great achievements, but I struggle to think how a work of fiction can be a great achievement. I don't think the world would be very different if neither of them had ever been written.
I'm pretty sure the eye spends exactly zero Joules on interpretation of visual stimuli.
As for the brain, the brain doesn't see characters at the perceptual level, that it then needs to join at the cognitive level into tokens. At the perceptual level it just sees shapes. Whether it takes more energy to parse != or ≠ is something I don't anyone has ever researched.
The way the title is written does imply C and C++ are not high-level languages. "Connect C/C++ programs with high-level programming languages", not "connect C/C++ programs with other high-level programming languages".
After reading the first sentence on the site, though, I think this was just a somewhat clumsy rephrasing. "SWIG is a software development tool that connects programs written in C and C++ with a variety of high-level programming languages." "A variety of high-level programming languages" implies there are some high-level languages that SWIG cannot connect C/++ with, and it's open to interpretation whether C/++ are among the high-level languages that SWIG doesn't connect C/++ with.
Anything natural is most likely OK? So by your estimation if you were lost in the woods, at least 50% of everything you'd see would not just be edible but actually good for you? I mean, just to cite an example, if you chew the seeds of apples and swallow them you're eating amygdalin, which is a chemical that reacts into cyanide in the stomach. Asbestos is a naturally-occurring mineral.
If anything, entirely the opposite is true. Most things in the world are either inedible (in the sense that they're immediately mechanically harmful to eat) or toxic in some way or another, at least without some "artificial" processing.
The statement "radio can possibly cause cancer" is irrelevant if it takes a signal so powerful no human would ever encounter it, let alone produce it. The question is whether radio signals used in telecommunications can cause cancer, especially compared to the waves already present in nature.
What do you mean? The fact that C can do this is an example of how it's not limited. A lot of other languages instead require you to allocate everything in the heap and there's no possibility of passing things by copy, or of not accessing things through anything other than a pointer. C at least is capable of allocating and accessing at least some things directly on the stack.
So what you're saying is that an acceptable way to compensate the system's bugginess is by making it more inefficient? I'd rather use a system that's stable under load.
No. If Cloudflare's policy really is that they'll service anyone, and then they don't, that's called hypocrisy. Their actions are incongruent with their statements. There's no nuance that needs to be considered to criticize that behavior. They could just as easily be up-front: "we'll service anyone as long as it's convenient to us", or whatever condition they secretly hold.
For example, "we will serve anyone who will pay, as long as we don't break the law in doing so". That seems easy enough to do, I'd say. If you can't get a service provider to tell you in clear terms under what circumstances they may cut you off, they're not a provider you should rely on.
>it's not much different from progressive image loading that's been around for decades
Progressive images suck. PNG's implementation is particularly awful, as you have to use increasing amounts of brainpower to tell whether it has finished loading or not.
No, that's moving the goalpost. From the very start the goal of artificial intelligence has been to make a machine that can think like a human. Who would want an artificial cat mind? What use would it be and why would someone go to the effort of creating one when natural cat minds are abundant?
I think the opposite is true. The people who need to worry are those that know only the most popular technologies, for which documentation and examples are readily available. The people who know the stuff that's not written down anywhere are the ones who are safe.
If all you do is crank out React code, you might want to start learning new things. If you know how to do RCE or are a networking wizard, on the other hand...
Having to process 100 source pixels per destination pixel to shrink 10x seems like an inefficient implementation. If you downsample each dimension individually you only need to process 20 pixels per pixel. This is the same optimization used for Gaussian blur.