Indeed. But the feeling of well-being is not absolute, but relative to you socio-economic context. The average American is manitudes better off now than 200 years ago, in absolute terms. But are they just as many magnitudes more happy? No. Depending on study, happiness is significantly less.
It's not at all clear that maximizing absolute quality of life is the best ultimate goal.
It doesn't give out reliable information and its "creativity" is questionable. Most of the excitement about it has to do with anthropomorphizing a robot that "feels" like an intelligent conversation partner, but it's not. Beyond toys, that is.
Similar to crypto. It isn't actually useful as a currency or to store value. Most of the excitemeny had to do with fake "freedom" dreams of the anarchically-leaning crowd and misunderstandings of what it is and isn't. Beyond toys, that is.
1000 generations into the future? People to whose genome you contributed 2^-1000, i.e. almost nothing? Who know neither your name nor care about it? Like you don't really care about your ancestors 1000 generations ago? Or 100,000 generations?
I don't get it.
Basically: Let's face it, when we're dead then we're dead. That's it. You have your life. Trying to achieve some sort of immortality or higher purpose by creating offspring is just as futile as praying or paying some quack to help you with afterlife matters.
> we have to preserve this species on another planet to ensure that intelligence doesn't disappear from the observable universe in case something happens to Earth/its biosphere
And why would such disappearence be bad? Really, honest question. Is there some inherent greater good to adher to by preserving intelligence, no matter how narrow it's being defined in this thread?
It could just cease existing. I don't see the problem.
And suddenly you care a lot about the "how", not just the "what". Voiding the whole "but it's declarative!" argument.
At least in imperative code the "how" is explicit. In functional code it's implicit and you need intimate knowledge about compiler and/or runtime to know what's going to happen.
And why would anybody care? Will you or anybody who will know about you be alive at that point?
There are millions if not billions alive today who are suffering from war, famine, dictatorships. And climate change is just making that worse. It would be more reasonable to help those souls instead.
> What do you think the effect of putting an output on Mars will be on Climate Change? I'm thinking negligible in comparison.
If you are seriously saying that getting 20k people to Mars is impacting Earths climate less than getting them to Mars then you need a reality check.
Hint: You can't not just not walk there, but anything apart from sunlight to support life isn't there which even Antarctica has in abundance (oxygen and water).
> If you are only selecting a single row, a join will be instantaneous.
Exactly. It's not like the join materializes explicitly in memory.
This has all been known for decades since the beginning of relational databases. That's why taking a DB class is valuable, or at least reading a good DB fundamentals book.
No, it can't. This is a terrible idea. After that sentence, I continued reading for a bit, for some purely morbid type of pleasure, but eventually had to close the tab.
If you have a security background then you know that 0days go for 6-7 figures and it's unlikely somebody would burn one of those on some random dude.
Way to make yourself feel important. It's not that you made some terrible choices yourself, like using a known-insecure password manager SaaS, or putting real money into crypto. Nono, somebody pulled a 0day on me, what can ya do? Shrugs
It's not at all clear that maximizing absolute quality of life is the best ultimate goal.