oilywater

6 ms·

1.
by oilywater 11y ago
Downvotes were clear enough that it was off-topic.
2.
by oilywater 11y ago
People downvote you but there's definitely some truth there to find. Thing about these projects is long-term gain. Maybe these toilets will pay off in 20-30 years, they have to, if they want to be sustainable. But yes, a single plane f
3.
by oilywater 11y ago
That's first world country mentality. Energy footprint of an average African is minuscule. They probably use and reuse quite a lot of stuff, efficiently without disposing it and requiring more energy for novelty production. One of the
4.
by oilywater 11y ago
It wasn't meant as a counter-argument, just filling in a stance and expanding on it. I do it sometimes, I apologize if it confused, probably should have replied to myself.
5.
by oilywater 11y ago
To put "humane" slaughter in a good perspective. "My life experience has given me a better understanding of what is happening, and what a mistake it is to believe there is anything called "humane" slaughter. Animal
6.
by oilywater 11y ago
As I've stated in my comment there are more than enough examples where that definition of species is lacking - it's not a line/plane/SVM-hyperplane. Evolution is gradual, there are no big species jumps. What was there be
7.
by oilywater 11y ago
Yeah, I'm adding paragraphs because I'm trying to anticipate the arguments people put forth to rationalize appeal to nature - and draw their moral (rational) conclusions from it. Especially when they don't know that nature is
8.
by oilywater 11y ago
Same way humans were differentiated by using races - ranking us lower/higher better/worse than others, that's what people do with species. If you find the theory of evolution a fact, then you wouldn't laugh at me. Any ra
9.
by oilywater 11y ago
Exactly, these laws and actions are failed (or maybe successful) attempts at trying to rationalize immoral behaviour. They convince themselves - believing they are kind and compassionate - that there are humane ways to end a life, humane ra
10.
by oilywater 11y ago
> Especially eating it, which is in the natural order of things. Yeah, those claws that you use to hunt your food down are pretty natural. Appeal to nature is an argument flaw and if you are rational you shouldn't use it. Humans a
11.
by oilywater 11y ago
Human is a label we gave to ourselves. Would you discriminate over homo erectus, homo habilis - would you call them non-human animals, would it be okay to use them for medical testing, maybe for food since their flesh doesn't have Neu5
12.
by oilywater 11y ago
Well, in 2025 it will be exactly at the computational capability of a brain.
13.
by oilywater 11y ago
Yeah, and sentience is a completely made up human thing by which we differentiate betweem ourselves and other non-human animals. What people want to see is artificial general intelligence, currently that is not possible. Does running human
14.
by oilywater 11y ago
I believe it is called problem solving, not math. Mathematics is a framework for problem solving which requires problem solving skills and knowledge of mathematics. I believe anyone using a piece of paper and writing down their thinking is
15.
by oilywater 11y ago
This game is the perfect tool for testing your problem solving skills. It puts you in a new framework and tests your cognition. Portal, The Talos Principle, all have the same goal. I wonder if people could become excellent problem solver by
16.
by oilywater 11y ago
Looks closer to support vector machine and its regression capabilities. Although, linear regression, logistic regression, svm regression, are all almost the same thing, the loss function is different, all can be trained with gradient descen
17.
by oilywater 11y ago
But we are doing a brand new diet. About 2000-10000 years ago human diet consisted of around 80% animal flesh.
18.
Overfishing causing global catches to fall three times faster than estimated(theguardian.com)
5 points by oilywater 11y ago|0 comments
19.
by oilywater 11y ago
I never mentioned dairy. You mentioned a half-assed parallel, and it is, and I pointed out every single bit that stinks in it, I do not give a damn about slaughter. I wasn't sure if aphids shit honeydew, or if they vomit it out through
20.
by oilywater 11y ago
Oh, so you are talking about change of the species without evolution?
21.
by oilywater 11y ago
1000 years isn't long enough for evolution.
22.
by oilywater 11y ago
Honeydew isn't tit secretion, it's vomit/shit. And how can a symbiosis of ants and aphids be a parallel for humans and cows. We do not protect cows from their predators, we slit their throats and they know that that's co
23.
by oilywater 11y ago
Our ancestors at one point in time had a diet consisting 60-80% of animal flesh. Do you think that this is what nature solved? I mean, technology has given us a way to rise above the evolution. We do not have claws, or teeth that could pier
24.
by oilywater 11y ago
If one wants to embark on a moral argument present in the theory of evolution, where no organism is more special than the other, then you'd probably avoid consumption of food coming from animals, or you'd be setting yourself up to
25.
by oilywater 11y ago
Yep, since November 2014 all of the versions of Soylent are vegan. So, we'll see how that turns out. It would be really interesting if some results are reported.
26.
by oilywater 11y ago
Doing this kind of science is so easy. Do the experiment, film the whole thing, leave the footage untouched, point to the timestamp where stuff happens, and voila, repeat the experiment and everyone will try to reproduce it. Instead of prov
27.
by oilywater 11y ago
http://accidentallyquadratic.tumblr.com/ Great blog with examples where something linear turns quadratic! :D Most of the examples show that being this high at the abstraction level disallows you to properly evaluate the com
28.
by oilywater 11y ago
I remember reading about this game on a private music torrent tracker what.cd and was working on the solution for a couple of hours. I believe there was a whole thread dedicated to these kinds of problems. Quite an entertaining problem, ski
29.
by oilywater 11y ago
I'm not pulling these numbers out of my butt. There's absolutely no way that there's one million gallium reserves economically viable for extraction. If there was, the price wouldn't be that high. Hafnium and indium too.
30.
by oilywater 11y ago
Mostly that. But realistically there's no education on any of this stuff. For example 2017 is the year when some of the most used rare earth elements will be depleted and should be retrieved through recycling in the next years (gallium

More ›