Sure, I mean pretty much by definition. What does that have to do with your question?
Sure, I mean pretty much by definition. What does that have to do with your question?
Are you under the impression that they don’t?
Well, yeah. That’s not really in the same category or ever really disputed
No, that’s my evidence that it wasn’t ubiquitous and typical.
Maybe not just your social circle, but social-circle-specific.
No, this was just your social circle. I know literally zero people who ever bought into any of that crap
Yes, your aunt has (probably) signed up for what’s essentially a scam. This is their whole business model, they know timeshares sound better than they end up being, so they intentionally trick people into signing contracts that are very difficult to get out of, so they can’t just dump it the moment they realize they don’t want it anymore.
Like others have mentioned, there are various options (donations/sponsorships/grants) that larger projects will generally have some of, but for smaller projects (99% of what’s out there, by project count if not usage), the answer is simply “it isn’t.” It’s done as a hobby, as a resume booster, or with the hope of eventually becoming big enough to hit one of those revenue streams.
That’s… An extremely bizarre take on what happened, and on whether selling would be a good idea. The stock market almost never has anything to do with electoral politics, and electoral politics almost never have anything to do with what your market position should be.
Not that you’re going to get any kind of constructive discussion here regardless, but it’s worth noting that “liberal” in the US means something very different in the rest of the world (what we’d call “neoliberal” or globalist) and I don’t really know which one you mean
I don’t think of either of them as having any specific regional accent at all. I think they just have somewhat similar voices and mannerisms
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
For the most part, they’re not specifically supporting the Israeli government. They have endowment funds, which they invest in mutual funds and other such financial instruments, like everyone else. Those mutual funds, in turn, invest money in a huge array of different stocks, bonds, etc, generally with the goal of producing a decent return with a minimum amount of risk. Buried somewhere in that pile of investments are things like Israeli government bonds, shares in defense contractors, etc, because political priorities are not usually a factor in how mutual funds decide where to put their money.
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%.
The corporate bureaucracy is as much a product of the overall system, and just as much a slave to its incentives, as you or I. Though granted, the level of self-awareness of their role in the system is on average pretty low. With few exceptions, there is nobody at the wheel of problems like these. Worrying about whose fault it is is usually a waste of time.
It’s wildly under-taught. It explains like half of all problems in the world. Education: “teaching to the test.” Economics: optimizing GDP at the expense of non-material well-being. Maximizing shareholder value by selling out employees and enshittifying your product. Software: “data-driven decision making” optimizing short -term gains over long-term because they are more measurable. That’s just off the top of my head.
I’m sure some parents use it as a substitute to avoid saying “son of a bitch” in front of their kids, if that helps