Yes? We don't have to blindly and constantly be making progress on everything at all cost. Look around you, look at what all this progress did to the world we live in.
This looks great. I just started trying to generate some models using golang and the ecosystem doesn't seem great. Will check this out, might work out better.
If you change inputs then obviously you will get a different output. Crucially using the same inputs, however, produces the same output. So compilers are actually deterministic.
I also think the article glossed/skipped over the xmax/xmin concepts. And they are fundamental to understand how different isolation levels actually work. It's quite jarring to the point I'm wondering if a whole section got accidentally dropped from the article.
It's really surprising how many people don't realise where omegas come from and just default to "more fish". Fish get omegas from alge. Simply skip the middle man and all the nasty side effects that has in the form of animal exploitation and harmful substances for humans they contain.
I love how google (youtube) starts immediately showing me ads in the language of whatever country I happen to be on holiday at the time. For that country specific services/products. As if they don't know exactly where I'm from and which languages I speak. Absolutely baffling that they get this so badly wrong.
That doesn't seem very practical. The issue is that imgur links are everywhere and you wouldn't want to switch browsers whenever you encounter one. Not to mention it requires per device setup. Author's solution is much better than what you describe.
Prime example: animal agriculture. By far the biggest driver of biodiversity loss and nature destruction. Yet people justify it constantly with trivial things like taste, convinience, tradition, etc.
It looks like we will be forever looking for solutions when we keep on ignoring animal farming in these conversations. Not even a single mention of the orders of magnitude more of water that is required for animal agriculture vs just growing plants directly for human consumption.
Would it solve everything? No. But it would solve a whole lot and the fact that someone that specialises in environmentalism doesn't even mention it shows just how far we are from solving this.
It'd be surprising if that applies in this context. In the case of the individuals OP mentions, their parents would not have been exposed to ultra processed food (or barely, perhaps only after they've reproduced), so ehatever gens they passed on would not have been adapted. There's simply not enough generations in this case. Especially not for such significant changes.
In any case, it's moot as by and large the westeren diet is not good for the population, exceptions are simply that.
Evolution doesn't work over a span of few generations. If humans are evolving to adapt to the modern weetern diet then we won't see that for a very very very long time.
You're just cherry picking examples while ignoring a mountain of literature that shows exactly the opposite of what you're saying.
> Coming from this direction, the addition of commas feels like an evil plan to have more syntax errors, with no obvious benefit
It helps to learn your history before you criticise something and claim it is useless.
JSON is the way it is mainly because it is just JavaScript and that meant that every browser in the world already supported it before JSON was even invented. It is THE reason why it is as popular as it is.
Great idea. However, the clip I got was spoken so fast that if I was able to actually understand any of it I think I wouldn't be learning Spanish as I'd have already mastered it.
While indeed irrelevant for the original point. I would encourage you to educate[1] yourself on the life these birds have before you make claims we're doing them a favour by bringing them into existence.