I almost hesitate to bring up the other problems with your plan since, obviously the total monstrosity of it. But that’s anyway pretty well covered so I’ll just throw in that blowing enough nukes to kill that many people would create considerably worse environmental disaster

Everyone is talking about dominant and recessive genes, so I just want to clarify a couple things.

The way your body directly uses genes is as a blueprint to construct proteins. Your cells are always producing proteins from the genes in all your chromosomes. It has complex ways of regulating how much of each it produces, but your body doesn’t care what chromosome it’s coming from. Once an embryo is fertilized, there’s really no distinction between “mom” chromosomes or “dad” chromosomes, as far as the embryo and its protein machinery are concerned.

“Dominant” and “recessive” characterization is about how those proteins affect your body at the macro scale, not whether your body actually uses the gene and produces its proteins – it always does that. For example, brown hair is a dominant trait, and blonde is recessive. But this is because producing any amount of brown pigment will make your hair brown, regardless of what other pigments you’re making, simply because it’s darker. Literally the same as combining blonde and brown paint. It has nothing to do with whether the genes are actually being expressed – the brown hair gene doesn’t stop the blonde hair gene from making its pigments.

Perhaps “always-on display” is clearer? Keeps it from turning off when idle

Why would anyone stop using those standards? You seem very confused about the incentives for adopting standards. Sure, maybe US-driven standards were chosen over other possibilities partly because of political environment, but once you have a perfectly good standard adopted you’re not just going to throw it out because the original author isn’t cool anymore. You don’t need a dominant power to adopt standards.

And for being “slightly political” and “focused on the standards,” your post sure does spend the majority of its time talking about only politics and not about standards at all

Sure, but now you’re talking about running a physical simulation of neurons. Real neurons aren’t just electrical circuits. Not only do they evolve rapidly over time, they’re powerfully influenced by their chemical environment, which is controlled by your body’s other systems, and so on. These aren’t just minor factors, they’re central parts of how your brain works.

Yes, in principle, we can (and have, to some extent) run physical simulations of neurons down to the molecular resolution necessary to accomplish this. But the computational power required to do that is massively, like billions of times, more expensive than the “neural networks” we have today, which are really just us anthropomorphizing a bunch of matrix multiplication.

It’s simply not feasible to do this at a scale large enough to be useful, even with all the computation on Earth.

“uncommon” is an overstatement, you can get them pretty much anywhere that has pots and pans. It’s uncommon in that most people don’t bother owning one, not that they’re hard to get

In addition to what others said, the way you perceive light intensity is not linear. Between your eye adjusting to changing light levels and just the way your brains visual centers work, it’s closer to logarithmic. Indoor lighting at night probably feels like, what, 10% of the brightness of daylight? In reality it’s less than 1%, sometimes closer to 0.1%.

It’s still lemmy, but the mander.xyz instance is exactly this for science

Other than maybe a few very rote, boilerplate types of development, all this shit about replacing coders is almost entirely noise made by either the wishful thinking of oligarchs or credulous repetition of that wishful thinking by clueless journalists.

But it’s still a pretty rough time to be just getting into tech, just because of the state of the job market.

Uh… Ask, I guess?

Because allowing them would be functionally the same as requiring them. Especially when there’s already a “primary” no-PED league.

I don’t really know what “original use” would mean – most emojis aren’t really made with some specific usage in mind, they’re just pictograms. The use is to be able to show a skull when you wanna

I’ve blocked multiple hundreds of communities, so if there is it’s high enough to not matter much

Lambda is certainly an interesting case for this, I’ll give you that. Outside of that, though, the impact on deployment speed is also not relevant; the bottlenecks for deployment are things like CI, canarying, even rolling blackout windows across AZs, etc. The actual time spent transmitting your build artifact over the network is completely negligible even at huge sizes

The size of the code is mostly irrelevant if you’re not shipping it to clients over the network on every request. Short of truly gargantuan statically-linked binaries in compiled languages, anyway, and bundling isn’t really an applicable concept there. And similarly, the overhead of loading modules from the filesystem is a one-time cost that’s mostly irrelevant for server-side code that runs for days or weeks or years at a time.

On the other hand, the complexity overhead of adding the additional bundling step is a major drag on development productivity, debuggability, etc.

+1, in the US Whatsapp is the thing you download when you’re traveling abroad, and has no other presence at all

There are “off the shelf” systems, for a sufficiently broad interpretation of “off the shelf.” But they are not cheap (requiring probably a dedicated team just to properly configure and maintain, and probably also requiring significant rearchitecturing of your application’s data), and are usually still quite shitty even after all that.

Search is just very, very hard. Much harder than even experienced devs who have not worked in the area appreciate.

Source: I am a dev on a major search engine. No, not that one, but one you have definitely used many times.

So, let’s put aside for a moment the rather shocking number of people casually advocating for murder in this thread.

I want to talk instead about how everyone here is just talking for granted the notion that removing the billionaires, Republican politicians, or whatever “they” you care to think of, would be a solution, or even a positive step, for modern social ills.

There’s a big undercurrent in almost any political discussion online, this implication that every one of the world’s problems actually has a super simple solution, that The Powerful could just snap their fingers and make it happen if they wanted to, and it’s only because of their greed etc that we have any problems that all. Obviously we live in a time of huge inequity and we’d be a lot better off if we found a good way to improve it.

But many (most?) of our biggest problems are inherent to the challenge of keeping 8 billion people alive and happy in a hostile universe, and in fact nobody has ever had a perfect solution. Throwing the entire planet into chaos by causally throwing away human beings’ rights and leaving an enormous portion of the world’s capital in uncertain hands, ready to be seized by some other set of psychopathic opportunists who happen to be in a position to do so, certainly ain’t it.