How far does one take that? A picture of a horse could be transformed into Abraham Lincoln with the right algorithm. Is that lossy compression?

No, they have to ingest it. These people are stupid

Models do not store the original, they store the model, which is a huge graph of probabilities.

Certain kinds of law proposals, when struck down, should result in jail time for those who signed the proposal. Trying to make arbitrary clothing or movement illegal is one of those things.

Medical care is optional and premium in the US for everyone.

While you’re clearly passionate about this, that’s not how science works. The default claim is not by default true. Instead science calls it the null hypothesis. Then a rigorous study is performed to try to disprove the null hypothesis with a percent certainty. Failure to refute the null hypothesis often constrains the possible domain, which is where the philosophy “God of the gaps” comes from. What this structure does is promotes new out of the box thinking for very hard problems, even if they seem they actually are not provable or outright wrong. The tactic of trying to overwhelm the scientific process of very strong null hypotheses and weak counter arguments is called a gish gallop.

I think you may be conflating burden of proof with the effort involved in that burden. Without a rigorous effort, the default claim is less strong and has not stood up to scrutiny. While it may seem too obvious for such things, we now know that science and physics can get really weird and complex… So ideas like “I think therefore I am”, first cause / Kalam, all the way to modern logic and number theory, all bolster claims of Occam’s Razor violation in a rigorous way instead of hand waving. We can think the outcome is certain and a waste of time, but really out of it has come some fundamental and valuable research into logic.

We know this now, due to in large part very smart people trying to prove it can be done in scientific ways with real philosophical and logic systems, and failing… Not just non-believers saying it’s obvious.

The thing is, it’s hard to discern where to stop… Could it be done safely with 1 guy and a truck? 2? Cherry picker? Did they need 6 guys, 3 trucks, and $300,000 worth of machinery to make it safe and easy? One costs 5x the other method, but it’s just easier on them and not necessary at all in some cases.

In such a case, shouldn’t they have voted 1 social 2 dem? Approval voting is fine, it allows cross aisle winners which are impossible now, but definitely has the chance of being a weak middle that’s always walking on eggshells.

I personally wish we used issue voting: each candidate takes a test, then you take a test, and an algorithm matches your answers with the candidate to avoid a huge number of problems with media driven campaigns.

Few people want B over their extreme I think. They want their lesser desired B vote to run off to A. Approval disproportionately advantages the middle, least desired by all parties.

deleted by creator

This is a joke, but not really. For what, under $10,000 can be free of putting dishes away forever… Might literally do this with 3-4 dishwashers. Any actual downside?

Ethan Chlebowski has many very good science and subjective testing based videos. Without any bullshit added in, except maybe his new website and app.

Forcibly subjected got us to where we are today. It works.

Eh, it works during the period it’s intended to work. When competition is high and not optimized. Optimization results in a need to convert to non-profit public utility status, which is where we fail.

Vote for the next president who has a platform to undo everything and to spend 4 years rounding up everyone doing heinous shit now. That’s the best you’re going to get.

It makes more sense if your character also has a lifetime time limit or cannot return to an area visited, else if you can, you’re right, no point in gating it as a time sink.

Games need very thoughtful trade-off and strategy management. Diablo for instance had a very beloved or maligned inventory mechanic playing tetris, which was set aside for the same reasons you talk about.

It matters a lot more if you cannot just whip out 80 potions and swap to optimize gear mid battle… If you had to make opportunity cost choices in games it would matter.

Great games balance all this, and you get more casual games the fewer choices and consequences there are, until they technically aren’t games anymore and just become number go up simulators.

As you run by items, should they just automatically get picked up and sold? Or just enter 1 giant spreadsheet so you can use or access the value of anything you’ve been near? Should you even be able to pick up a plate or should only core items be actual items like old school games? I’d argue the player is deciding what is and is not worth their real life time, else again, it’s not a game, it’s a spreadsheet. Granted, there’s a fine line to walk here between what is a game, what strategic decisions there should be, and how tedious should things be. It’s more complex than what you’re considering, and it’s a very slippery slope that ends in spreadsheets, math, automation, and whether or not anything is worth playing at all, or is the story the only important part and the rest is just wasting time… So perhaps no games, just books.

There’s a reason things like consumer protection agencies should exist. Most are too stupid and easily taken advantage of. You cannot run a society like that well. SpaceX already raised their funds and the bag holders are regular people. That is bad for society even if we may like to point and laugh at the morons.