Or similarly having a gasoline engine without an alternator and making the observation that there's an absurdity there in that you're generating large amounts of energy, yet aren't able to charge a relatively small 12V battery with any of it. It's a very practical and natural limitation, yet in some sense you have exactly what you want - energy - you just can't use it because of the form. If you step back there's an amusing irony buried in that. At least in my humble opinion :-)
> reasoning ability should enable them to handle numbers of arbitrary size, just as it enables humans to do so, given some pencil and paper.
Or given a calculator. Which it's running on. Which it in some sense is. There's something deeply ironic about the fact that we have an "AI" running on the most technologically advanced calculator in the history of mankind and...it can't do basic math.
> If plastic is burried it's not doing much more than it was when it was oil.
Unless it's sequestering something inside. Like water. It terrifies me to think about how much water is locked away for centuries in bottles underground.
Unfortunately you are doing the very thing that you accuse Musk of doing. L5 autonomy is not formalized (nor do I think it is able to be formalized) to the extent that would permit a rigorous proof showing it is isomorphic to the halting problem.
Your claim conflates a nebulous, squishy, human goal with a formally and rigorously proven mathematical problem. The only support offered is links to wikipedia and news articles, none of which help connect the two in an equally formal and rigorous fashion.
For me, it's more what's philosophically right about an innocent person enduring suffering or punishment through no fault of their own. To me, that appears to be a great (maybe even the greatest) injustice.
Some of us, governments included, believe that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental right.
"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved."
That quote is from Benjamin Franklin, one of the founders of the US government.
> I think it can be claimed that it limits the rate of spread, not total spread/infections.
Sure. We're probably all getting this thing at some point. But, that's why I said "until all ages are able to be vaccinated."
I really wish the US and other countries would take the Singapore route and require the unvaccinated assholes clogging up our medical system (and exhausting our highly trained/educated/caring physicians and nurses) to pay their own healthcare costs incurred due to COVID.
Having the unvaccinated directly realize some cost for their own ignorance seems highly appropriate here. Although I suppose at least some of them are paying the ultimate price with their life, which is also very unfortunate.
I actually support masks in schools. There's solid scientific evidence backing it as a mechanism to help limit the spread of COVID. Until all ages are able to be vaccinated, it seems like a prudent course of action.
It's unfortunate that people are trying to turn such things into political statements.
It's a sophist play on emotions. I don't think there's actual malice behind it, though. More that people struggle to assert themselves and provide direct, well-reasoned arguments. So, exaggerating or throwing meaning away altogether is an easy alternative. It is also particularly useful in obscuring a lack of any sort of coherent plan or proposed action(s) when one is angry/frustrated/etc.
To some extent I also believe it's natural to try to elicit an emotional response from the other "side," because then you can focus on attacking their words, tone, character, etc instead of engaging in reasoned discourse and debate. You get a bit of an automatic advantage if your opponent is already in an emotionally charged state. From what I've seen, the phrases you mention are pretty good at that too.
All of this ends up doing more harm than good most, if not all, of the time.
I believe the world becomes even worse when people are unable to speak candidly, frankly, and in their own way. Being able to extract and recognize the meaning behind someone's words, in spite of any perceived flaw in word choice or phrasing, is one of the hallmarks of a mature and intelligent individual.
This belief that controlling how people speak will somehow make the world a better place seems somewhat quixotic.
The United States of America is preserved today - intact - specifically because Lincoln valued coexisting with the confederates above almost all else. He made clear even in his first inaugural address that the preservation of the Union was paramount.
There is an incredibly important distinction between fighting against the ignorant temper tantrum of your brothers and sisters and exterminating them all.
> The reality is your attention had a cost, and the price of quality tap water is less than that cost.
For some people, maybe. This seems like a mildly sociopathic way to look at it, though.
One could imagine a world where the same type of device was available free of charge without being ad supported. This is certainly a more difficult solution from a financial standpoint, but it would be indisputably better.
And, to some extent, it has been the status quo in many places already with standard water fountains. Admittedly, many of them now are in desperate need of an upgrade.
I believe this type of monetization simply fails to take into account the greater public good in the pursuit of profits.
I've already experienced advertisements on gasoline pumps. I would concede that it is not exactly the same thing - gas pumps are worse, because you're already paying for a product.
However, it is certainly just as annoying and invasive.
Do you ever stop and ask yourself "am I really making the world a better place by doing this?"