Wingsrising

I have long been curious just how realistic the use of dragons in the Temeraire books is, from an "is this what one would actually do with dragons if one had dragons" standpoint.

I flunked running in junior high school gym class -- you had to be able to run a 10-minute-mile and I couldn't.

I now know that screaming at the runner whenever they drop back to a walk while their peers mock them isn't how you train someone to run a mile, but don't have the urge to try again.

It kinda sounds like he was set up deliberately, to be honest.
bsky.app/profile/glon...

I don't know what the answer is but my impression (admittedly based totally on skeets) is that the BAFTA settled on "let's just hope the guy who uncontrollably shouts inappropriate things doesn't shout anything inappropriate" and that was definitely NOT the answer.

Oh, yeah, it's a huge problem for face-to-face classes, too. But at least in a face-to-face class I can give in-person pencil-and-paper exams to go with the out-of-class assignments, whereas online is all online.

In the long run, if the good job paper no longer means students have acquired the skills they need for a good job, I imagine the good job paper will become just the paper.

I agree that the primary value of a university education is learning and not the increased earnings, but given the cost it's understandable why people focus on the latter and thus worth pointing out that ultimately the learning is WHY they get increased earnings.

The goal, of course, being getting students to realize that they are supposed to be getting something out of this other than just the piece of paper at the end, something that makes them worth more (and maybe to reflect on what will happen if their employer discovers they did not get it).

I have a colleague who asks students, "What is it that you think you get out of college that makes it worth paying you more than someone who started right out of high school and now has four years' job experience?"

Alas, same here. (Including that I have had mango juice without a problem, although now that I have had an allergic reaction to the mango itself, I am reluctant to try it again.)

The photographer’s legs are on a coffee table. A short-haired black cat and a grey fluffy cat sit on her legs, the black cat in front, both staring at her in mute entreaty.

The human is eating turkey.

"Mr. Plamberger’s lawyer... said after the ruling that the trial was “fair” and that his client “accepted the verdict with composure.”

Well, yeah, of course he's going to accept getting to off his girlfriend with almost no consequences.

"The man, Thomas Plamberger, 37, was given a suspended sentence of five months in prison and fined 9,600 euros (about $11,300)"

So they found him guilty, but the only consequence is that he is going to have to start a GoFundMe which will probably net him many times his fine. Figures.

"Safety for whom? And from what?"

Safety of people. From being raped.

Yeah, but that doesn't say anything about whether the computer is conscious or not. It's the problem of other minds. I don't know if any other human but me is conscious, but I assume they are because we're both humans. With a computer, we still can't know and it's harder to make the assumption.

Yes, but all that stuff happened after the end of the series. Aragorn's kingship wasn't portrayed in the main course of the story because the story ended only a few years later when Frodo left Middle Earth.

TBF, ending stories seems to be something GRRM has problems with...

I suspect probably yes but would not be completely shocked if no.

But how could we ever tell either way?

Given that we have not even an inkling of an idea how and why consciousness is a thing, maybe? We have no idea how or why it happens so have no idea of it can happen to a computer or not.

(Aside: I am not a coder, though I thought about going that direction at one time. But I feel like "The AI writes the code and you figure out why it doesn't work and fix it" is exactly this. Coding is fun! Debugging sucks! The robot is doing the fun part and leaving you the sucky part!)

But also, I don't want the robots to do the good part of my work while I get stuck with the bad part of my work.

And maybe that is not what the author is trying to imply if you take that passage in its entire context, but of course I don't have the entire context.

But that is what suggesting that it didn't matter whether Trump or Harris won the election implies.

Last I looked the projection is that around 4.5 million children under 5 will die because of cuts to USAID. The page you're citing indicates that there's a point beyond which that doesn't matter. There is not. There is no point beyond which 4.5 million dead kids don't matter.

Oh, I read it. I just think it's wrong, both factually and morally. I think it's factually wrong because the thing that concerns me most about Trump is NOT actually harm to me personally. I think it's morally wrong because I think there is no circumstance in which it doesn't matter when people die.

This isn’t hypothetical: There are already hundreds of thousands of people who are dead now would have been alive if Harris had been elected, thanks to USAID.

Would you tell the parents of those kids that it doesn’t who was elected? Because it matters to them. It matters that their child died.

If you have chance to vote for more dead people vs. fewer dead people, and those are the only options, then you should vote for fewer dead people, because fewer dead people is better.

I don’t think the extra dead people really care how the candidate phrased it, they just care that they’re dead.

Literally, what I am arguing is that the fewer innocent people die, the better, so if the available options are fewer people dying vs. more people dying, we should take the fewer people dying option.

Definitions of Genocide and Related Crimes | United Nations

Here is the definition of genocide according to the UN:

www.un.org/en/genocide-...

Something can still be genocide even if it has not succeeded in killing every last member of a race of people. (The Holocaust, for example, was an act of genocide.)

I wish as a society we would start embracing the concept of "civic duty" again. You vote because it is your civic duty in a democracy, to give your community and your country the best government possible. The duty is to the community, not the candidates! Your vote is not the rose on the Bachelor.

If you feel like the choice between "less genocide" and "more genocide" is meaningless because they're both genocide, consider whether the people who would have died under "more genocide" but live under "less genocide" agree that their lives are meaningless.

Bring back public hangings! Bring your kids! Sing songs about the crimes of the person being executed!