A lot of agricultural water use is wildly inefficient, and a lot of that inefficiency is attributable to subsidization of water prices.
2,012 karma · joined September 26, 2019
What an absurd thing to say. This honestly gives the impression that you aren't arguing in good faith. If you don't see the difference between these:
- a word that was used universally in the pejorative against one of the most gruesomely marginalized groups of people in human history, and has been reclaimed by that marginalized group but outside of it is still universally pejorative
- a word that has never been predominantly used pejoratively, being applied to a group that isn't in any sense marginalized, and in fact when used pejoratively is almost always applied to a privileged group (people gentrifying communities due to their higher relative income)
... I don't see how anyone could possibly have a productive discussion of this with you.
> Migrants are migrants. Anti-immigration sentiment restricted to domestic immigration alone is nor specifically more acceptable than that for foreigners.
This is patently false. Domestic migration in the US, outside of the basic physical challenges, carries almost zero extra hardship, legal challenges, etc. No domestic migrant* is getting their legal status in San Francisco revoked and being deported to the Congo. Nobody has ever rounded up the midwesterners in New York City and put them in internment camps. The last time there was significant mob violence against domestic migrants was in the reconstruction era against so-called carpet baggers, and that situation had a lot of additional baggage (they had just lost a war to these people).
Can you not see the difference between being punching up and punching down?
I've always literally never heard it used to refer to someone who migrated from another country. Only someone who moved domestically.
4th for that! Although screen scraping always infuriated me, so I spent most of my time writing bots for decompiled RS clients.
Any chance you could give me detail on what went wrong?
I don't agree with this premise.
If a bit flip creates a worm, is God hacking the affected computers? Why can't an inanimate object hack a computer?
A closer analogy would be if you turned on your blinker and your car autonomously decided to shoot the card in your blind spot with a rocket.
The name "AI Assistant" not only does not indicate that it will spontaneously break the law to break into other computer systems, it also carries some implied liability. It claims to replace a real life assistant, who in fact would be liable for breaking the law in carrying out their tasks (unless it could be argued that you implied they should break the law when giving them the task).
I don't think seeking to involve those people in your life is. It would be interesting to ask an oracle what percentage of people have managed to "change" an abusive partner after pursuing them knowing full well the red flags they display. I'd wager it is a tiny percentage though.
I can't stand this. Most people who suck aren't an onion. They just suck. Or there is a nice layer under that, and then beneath that a core of suck.
> Don't know how to operate a power hammer? don't care, any problems it causes are still your fault.
> Don't know how to operate a power hammer? don't care, any problems it causes are still your fault.
It's more of a theoretical corpus for the sake of this discussion. Just think of it as "all math humans have discovered/invented".
> Are all theorems or axioms useful?
Definitively no! Check out the first incompleteness theorem proof by diagonalization. The whole proof is based around generating new "facts" that are completely useless and uninteresting, outside of their utility in the proof itself.
It's actually a great question: to what extent do the incompleteness theorems actually apply to stuff that isn't silly and useless! The same goes for a couple similar proofs in other domains. An important one in Computer Science is Turing's proof that the halting problem can't be solved. There's at least one other important proof that is similar but I can't remember it at the moment.
To massively oversimplify, they can be boiled down to variations of:
> This statement is false.
Which proves that allowing self-referential statements can create a statement that isn't true or false. But they all raise the question: how often does this actually happen with statements we actually care about?
There may be a finite point at which we've proven and codified everything but the most inane meta-meta-meta-maths though.
Geocities and vBulletin users!
> I asked below as well, but how does the observer effect work as a physical system?
Just to be sure - the observer effect doesn't refer to a human observer, but rather to any measurement of a quantum system.
It is unsatisfying that quantum mechanics posits that particle states are fundamentally probabilistic. It's possible that in some sense there is an underlying order such as string theory that is impossible to test or verify. In that case, it would make sense to consider string theory as metaphysics. A fun exercise, but not scientific and not useful for understanding the world. By definition it would not be helpful in predicting or modeling the world, otherwise that would serve as a way of testing the theory.
More on the subject:
And now we are finding that cetaceans have language more complex than out own :)
Agreed with you on all points!