Ice sinks to a certain point. If being attached to the shelf was holding that ice up higher than it would float, it’ll sink.

Don’t know if the movie shows it sinking further than that though, but the general assertion that ice doesn’t sink at all is definitely mistaken.

It’s better if the police budget is spent on replacing tires rather than purchasing even more unnecessary surplus military equipment which they will then try to justify using.

To be fair, there is someday going to be a generation where that doesn’t happen (assuming humans don’t obliterate themselves first). Eventually it’s practically a certainty that we will develop the means to preserve humans indefinitely.

It’s possible to. Are they? Correct me if I’m wrong, but they’re not. They’re going after Microsoft and not Google.

Not that it makes any difference since Edge is just reskinned Chrome now anyway. If it was still it’s own thing I’d be rooting for Microsoft, at least up until they start to become bigger, then I’d turn on them.

The irony is that if they put it at or near the end of the video, after I have learned that I like whatever I watched, I am much more likely to do so, because I often really do just forget to like things, and a reminder near the end would in fact make me go ‘yeah, this was good, I’ll do that’.

But if they ask me to do it at the beginning, I won’t do it until I have seen enough to decide I do in fact like it.

Hey, deep fakes are awesome. They are a necessary step in the evolution of the technology that leads to holodecks.

I want holodecks, I bet you want holodecks, practically everyone wants holodecks, so we have to go through this stage of the tech to get there.

It’s not implying he can’t be bothered, but that the machine can do a better job.

…which may be true, depending on just how bad he is at writing. Like, I was just watching this classic the other day. If this guy writes like some of those people, the machine may infact be better.

That said, for most people it’s stupid, and the tech isn’t able to do a better job at expressing such things.

Yet.

Thank you, I understand better now. So in theory, if one of the other search engines chose to not have their crawler identify itself, it would be more difficult for them to be blocked.

I’m kind of curious to understand how they’re blocking other search engines. I was under the impression that search engines just viewed the same pages we do to search through, and the only way to ‘hide’ things from them was to not have them publicly available. Is this something that other search engines could choose to circumvent if they decided to?

Better to acknowledge it in a response. I prefer to do that myself if I’m wrong or something of that nature, post a reply acknowledging instead of trying to cover up that I was ever wrong in the first place.

They aren’t using it, no, but that doesn’t mean the scientific method can’t study what they do and come to an understanding of it - probably a better understanding of it than they have, since as you say, they aren’t using it. It’d just take a few decades of study probably to have a much stronger understanding of how it works.

My point is just that people draw this weird line between ‘science’ and ‘magic’ as though they were incompatible. In a world in which magic is real and useful, science can study it.

It irritates me that so many forums and media sites allow you to edit your posts at will. There’s one site I go to that I like very much - it has a 5 minute edit window, and after that, your post can no longer be edited. You can’t change what you said, pretend you never said things, etc, once you say something it remains. It would be nice if more sites were like that. Or at least, if you edit/delete something, for there to be an option to check the history to see what it used to be, so if you try to delete some comment you made people can still check it. Whether it’s informational, or it’s because you’re trying to hide something you said that you realize was actually super shitty and people are getting angry at you for it, I prefer things to stick.

Their reality doesn’t defy understanding by the scientific process. It has reliable, repeatable results, and therefore can be studied and empirically catalogued. The only way something could not be studied by science is if it’s totally random, if actions do not correlate, even slightly, with results. Of course, such behavior would make it completely useless as a tool, because one could never get desired results from it. Magic in the setting is very reliable and repatable, and as long as you do it right, results can be studied, so it’s easily catalogued by the scientific method.

To be fair, not using punctuation and paragraphs should be a bannable offense on every form of written media to exist!

Yeah, that’s what I was gonna say, I think it comes down to whether swimming is the first event. If it is, the shark wins (because I forfeit).

Assuming we’re talking about an actually dangerous type of shark and not one of the many many harmless shark species.

So if they did their jobs properly, not many people should know about them beyond myths and legends.

Except for the big galactic war like 20 years ago where the news would’ve been all Jedi General soandso defeats separatist forces in such and such planet, with news footage of the Jedi flinging around droids like ragdolls and flipping and cutting through them.

And then of course the 20 years of war movies after, that sure, due to Imperial propaganda would be painting the Jedi as sinister evil dudes preparing to take control of the galaxy, but they still would’ve been showing all their terrifying powers.

Jedi would be as well known as the F-117 Stealth Fighter is in reality. Do they know all it’s technical specifications? No. But they have an idea of what it does - indeed, a somewhat exaggerated idea, even, so the average person would think Jedi are even more powerful than they really were.

Many of those economic issues are a source for other problems. Resolving them may not solve the other problems, but those other problems also can’t be solved without dealing with one of the major causes first.

It’s like having a house with a giant crack in the wall, and some people want to fix the foundation while some want to fix the crack. Fixing the foundation isn’t going to fix the crack, but if you fix the crack without fixing the foundation, it’s just going to break open again.

If they raise the prices in those countries they would make less money because volume of subscribers would go down enough for total income to decrease.

If they lowered the price in the US, they would make less money because the subscribers they would gain would not be enough to offset the reduced income from each.

That’s it, it has nothing to do with operating costs or fairness, it’s just a question of what price point they believe will make them the most money in a given market.

Yup, exactly. The only regulation I’d be in favor of for AI is this: if it was trained on data which can be accessed by or was posted by the public, it must be freely available, such that if anything in the training data was posted online in a way anyone can see, then then I have free access to tge AI too.

Basically any other regulation, even if the companies whine publicly, is actually one that benefits them by raising the barrier of entry and making it more expensive for small actors to create AI tools.

They’ve gotten smart enough to use reverse psychology on this kind of thing.

This very much feels like “Only please, Brer Fox, please don’t throw me into the briar patch.”