Also, why is it that being devoutly religious is somehow a beneficial character trait, like in D&D? Who gives a fuck if he went to church?
It's relevant from a storytelling perspective because it explains the motivations of his family, and presumably what his inclination would have been.
The moral prescriptivism is something you imbued. The actual text is just character development, like if he loved singing or playing a sport.
But you can also respond to a $1.70 legal notice with your own $1.70 legal notice.
And by doing so, you admit you read the letter, that your address is accurate, and perhaps some other information leaks that can be used against you. Whereas you would need an actual lawyer to tell you whether to respond.
(Of course a chatbot could tell you whether to respond, but it would be illegal. I'm not sure if the chatbot's operators would be liable, or even whether the law against practicing law without a license applies to non-humans. This is probably not just theoretical--I'm sure people do ask chatbots legal questions.)
The magic is that three antibodies confer protection against many species of snake. But why doesn't this happen for existing antivenoms? From the ABC article:
antivenom is created using animal blood, like horses or other large mammals.
The animals are given small doses of the venom, and then over time given larger and larger doses. This helps the animal produce an increasing immune response without getting so sick they die.
From another article:
Broad-spectrum or “polyvalent” antivenoms are made by injecting horses with mixtures of venom from different species or different populations of snakes. However, the elevated antibody content per dose can increase the risk of adverse reactions.
It's not surprising that cells developed in a human are more suited to us than cells developed in horses. But the technique is fundamentally the same. Is the new antivenom better solely because it is human, or is it somehow more adapted as a result of being honed in vivo for 18 years?
The magic is that three antibodies confer protection against many species of snake. But why doesn't this happen for existing antivenoms? From the original article:
antivenom is created using animal blood, like horses or other large mammals.
The animals are given small doses of the venom, and then over time given larger and larger doses. This helps the animal produce an increasing immune response without getting so sick they die.
From another article:
Broad-spectrum or “polyvalent” antivenoms are made by injecting horses with mixtures of venom from different species or different populations of snakes. However, the elevated antibody content per dose can increase the risk of adverse reactions.
It's not surprising that cells developed in a human are more suited to us than cells developed in horses. But the technique is fundamentally the same. Is the new antivenom better solely because it is human, or is it somehow more adapted as a result of being honed in vivo for 18 years?
The team's results have been published today in the journal Cell... The new antivenom described in the study is very different to traditional antivenoms, according to Peter Kwong, a biochemist at Columbia University and one of the study's authors.
Your comment is akin to pseudoscience. You don't get to use grammar and word roots to determine how real engineering works.
But to answer you more directly, I suspect one should consider plasticizers as a type of processing aid that makes molding and forming easier. Did you know injection molding requires insane pressures? Liquid thermoplastic has so much friction that it abrades the tool steel molds!
You're a consumer? Look for packaging that isn't PVC and you're likely to avoid plasticizers altogether.
Unfortunately that's not true, but I haven't been able to find good information on how often other household plastics contain plasticizers, and how much.
Thanks for the informative post! You've made a convincing, if implicit, argument that Linus is right and that we shouldn't expect filesystems to attempt this.
The problem is that we have no reasonable theory of conscious experience, and I haven't even heard of anything that seems like clear step in the right direction. We have no hard evidence for conscious experience except philosophical induction--I am conscious and you are like me, so presumably you are conscious. We have no ability to evaluate algorithms or machines, and no theory that would start to argue why they have to be conscious or can't be. And don't start to parrot phrases like "information processing" unless you can argue whether and why supercomputers, cities, DNA, and tiny worms have conscious experience.
But consciousness is not the real target. For algorithms or machines to have moral worth, they need to have aversion and/or well-being. Any serious meditator knows that conscious experience is not sufficient for having good or bad experiences. For that, we need to attach value judgments--not at an intellectual level but at the experiential level. We need to consciously experience value judgments in order to thrive and suffer.
We should consider the moral weight of machines if and only if they can consciously experience values in the form of well-being and suffering. And you can't just ask them because they may have abstract values but not experiential values.
There is a generalization: women fear direct violence from men; men fear state violence from women. Not being able to export messages is a self defense problem for men.
* I know some people will find it ridiculous and offensive that I'm comparing legal trouble to physical violence. To those people, I am glad you and yours have not been made to suffer in this way.
Rice, especially brown rice, should be parboiled (for five minutes in pre-heated water, which is then discarded) to remove arsenic. Though it doesn't remove it all, and parboiling also removes some vitamins, so the discovery in thi article is still a problem.
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sheffield.ac.uk%2Fsu...
This doesn't make sense, does it? Certificates are valid for 6 days, so if my key is compromised, there won't be much damage. However certificates are only valid for 6 days, so it's a practical requirement to automate renewal.
If I automate renewal, doesn't that mean my compromised key is valid forever? Or is cancelling this automaton supposed to work better than revocation? It's certainly going to take 1-6 days instead of being effective right away.
I was prescribed an antibiotic I had not heard of before. It turned out after a bit of investigation that it was a combination of antibiotics, a mix of medications...
Had I known what I was being prescribed at the time I would have spoke up to the physician and asked for the cheaper, likely just as effective, amoxicillin instead.
I'm not up to speed on the state of the art, but my understanding is that you've got it backwards. Yes, if you don't take a fancy antibiotic you can't cause resistance to that fancy antibiotic. But if you only take amoxicillin you may develop an infection that's resistant to amoxicillin. But if you take the right cocktail of antibiotics, it's highly unlikely that that resistance to any of them will arise, since they act synergistically and the bacteria will be killed.
Though I'm not familiar with how wastewater comes into the equation.
The fact that sucking ill-filtered coal smoke is bad for you isn't exactly an esoteric point of cutting edge science; but they know it won't be them breathing it.
What legal reformations would it take to charge the person most in charge of launching this power plant with murder? I mean if we prove beyond shadow of a doubt that this decision kills people (though we can never prove which ones). And if we can prove that a reasonable person would have known that would happen.
The fact that your instructions don't apply to my living situation or my pans is an indication that cast iron is a giant pain (not for everybody, but for a significant portion of people/pots).
I'm sure this is great advice for a combination of some pans, some ovens, and some cooktops. Of course I've tried all of this. It's not really productive to explain why each point doesn't work, but for example my big pan doesn't fit in what's considered a normal sized oven in my city.
The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely 1 bananosecond.
