turbokatsu20

Anyone can cherry pick a few design choices they don't understand and say it was incompetance.

How many contractors arrive on site and incredulously say "what was the last guy thinking?" and actually mean it?

Just because we don't understand the reasoning yet isn't strong evidence of incompentant designs, it's more evidence of our own incompentance.

We used to think that the appendix was vestigial and useless, we used to think that 'Junk dna' was a thing. With more time and research we now know how wrong we were. I'll take the downvotes and predict that we'll keep finding out how wrong we are long into the future on this subject.

>It always confuses me how on a site for techies, where people constantly reason about with virtual concepts and abstractions, the idea that physical biology genes and hormones might be typically but not EXCLUSIVELY coupled with mental sentience is so difficult to imagine.

I personally struggle to understand why a site full of techies can't see the human body for what it is, a genuine masterpiece of engineering with the clear and unmistakable hallmarks of purpose and higher order systems design.

Which, in our experience as engineers, is only ever the product of deliberate intelligence and any claim of exception should really raise eyebrows. Anyone who builds anything should have no trouble with this.

Based on that, I don't believe that the human body was designed for gender fluidity, in fact it is clearly deliberately set up to be binary. Any deviation from that default, in human beings, is unintended error. Perhaps due to deleterious genetic mutation or other entropic effects normally seen in complex systems.

Regardless of what you believe though, the safest thing to say is that we don't fully understand the systems in the body yet, and so Chesterton's Fence should apply. And ESPECIALLY so, when it's deciding whether to perform irreversible surgical work on a vulnerable population.

Somebody out there has assembled a massive list of all findings like this that upset the prevailing paradigm, I hope I get to see their work one day.

Until then we'll just have to hear about outlier findings drip by drip so as not to upset established lore for the materialist West.

If you are forced to work because you're broke and owe money, is that slavery? Do you get to kill the people who subjugated you?

I love this video.

I would say taking somebodies life simply because of their position of dominance over you as immoral, yes.

Taxation is theft? Really? I presume your taxes don't pay for anything you use on a regular basis in your country if you're saying thay right?

That smile is so creepy.

Firefox containers is the solution to this headache for almost every multi tenanted service. I used to have it installed only for those tasks when I was working in consultancy.

Science has no agreed consensus on what the definition of 'life' is. If we can't agree on its definition, how can we accurately calculate the odds of it arising ab initio?

Also, your second point is the wrong question being asked. The first is "how likely is it that life arose by chance in a lifeless universe?" The second should be "how likely is it that this ordered and organised system in front of me is the product of engineering and intelligence?"

Based on what we know about information management systems, it's extremely likely that any information management system that we stumble across is the product of intelligence and intention.

We have an environmental adaptation system which records state, replicates data with efficient parsing, integrity checking and hot / cool storage.

Even the behaviour that most people call 'evolution' relies on our genetic information system.

We have never in our history, ever, seen a system work with such and so many deliberate intentions in managing encoded information that wasn't the product of deliberate intention.

The burden of proof is on those who say that the work of all the software engineers on this website could all be done if you just leave a computer on for enough time. By this logic, the computer left alone will design its own hardware and supply chain, its own OS, its own backup system too, etc etc.

We create systems, we know enough about them to know how hard they are to maintain. And how much effort it takes to create a working system. Even a python hello world is built on >thousands of hours of software engineering. Why should something like the cell be considered any differently?

You're quite welcome to believe that, but that doesn't satisfyingly account for entropy.

Also, the longer any complex but lifeless structure in that scenario exists, the more likely it is to be destroyed by natural forces that we know and operate with every day.

It's not likely, in fact, it takes more faith to believe in those odds than it does to believe that humans are the deliberately engineered.

I think it's remarkable that one can't help but use language like 'designed' when referring to highly ordered and complex engineering marvels in nature but what they actually mean is that they believe this robust, highly ordered information management system was haphazardly built one bitflip at a time until we have the most successful organism in the known universe.

The further we push the boundaries of what we know about engineering, the more far fetched that paradigm becomes. I predict that mankind will see more successful breakthroughs when they start looking at organic systems through the lens of deliberate system design rather than spending so long kidding ourselves that it was all achieved by chance against impossible odds.

Do they count abortion under 'infant mortality'?

Once you go hack, you never go back.

I do enjoy your videos, especially the rules for rulers one, which I often think about when I need to humanise politicians. It's inevitable that they end up compromising every moral fibre of their being on the way to power, so I shouldn't be surprised or outraged.

"Acceptance of things" operates like any other social contagion.

If nobody else is really that fussed about it, why should you be?