The apartment I bought had cabinets with fake, decorative drawers on them. Except it turned out that one of those drawers wasn’t decorative. It was just stuck.
Inside there was a full set of silverware (as in literal silver) from the 60’s complete with the original receipt. It’s worth thousands of dollars. I guess whoever lived there before me was in no condition to pack and the people who packed didn’t know about the silver…
Libre Office (at least Calc which is the one I use most) is usable but it has bizarre random slowdowns and crashes relatively frequently, whereas I have never once had issues like that with Microsoft Office. I still use Libre Office (on both Windows and Linux) because it’s free but I acknowledge that it has disadvantages.
You don’t mind their UI conventions? I suppose I could probably get used to them, but while I’m comfortable with Windows and Linux desktop environments, I find the Mac one to be quite unpleasant to use for some reason.
You use Arch? Bah, I am Arch.
Yeah but then what are the cat ears?
No, the tongs are for when the vacuum wants to take you alive.
It’s a good thing none of them were armed…
He’ll also have to come and help, unless he just wants to watch you go at it alone.
Mine says “cleaning”, “charging”, etc.
I disagree with you, because a modern human could offer the people of the distant past (with their far less advanced technology) solutions to their problems which would seem miraculous to them. Things that they thought were impossible would be easy for the modern human. The computer may do the same for us, with a solution to climate change that would be, as you put it, magically ecological.
With that said, the computer wouldn’t be giving humans suggestions. It would be the one in charge. Imagine a group of chimpanzees that somehow create a modern human. (Not a naked guy with nothing, but rather someone with all the knowledge we have now.) That human isn’t going to limit himself to answering questions for very long. This isn’t a perfect analogy because chimpanzees don’t comprehend language, but if a human with a brain just 3.5 times the size of a chimpanzee’s can do so much more than a chimpanzee, a computer with calculational capability orders of magnitude greater than a human’s could be a god compared to us. (The critical thing is to make it a loving god; humans haven’t been good to chimpanzees.)
I don’t think you’re imagining the same thing they are when you hear the word “AI”. They’re not imagining a computer that prints out a new idea that is about as good as the ideas that humans have come up with. Even that would be amazing (it would mean that a computer could do science and engineering about as well as a human) but they’re imagining a computer that’s better than any human. Better at everything. It would be the end of the world as we know it, and perhaps the start of something much better. In any case, climate change wouldn’t be our problem anymore.
Doing things like this when you’re certainly being recorded is a great idea. Wait, hold on…
She’s single, you know…
Meanwhile Simba has a perfectly good mother.
In the original Fallout you could defeat the final boss just by talking to him, but in addition to the speech skill you actually had to find and bring the evidence that his plan was doomed to failure. The issue wasn’t a matter of opinion - you needed scientific proof.
You could also choose to let him convince you that he was right, which was one of the ways to get the bad ending.
Less documentation means more job security.
Think of it as assertiveness training.
We read the ingredients on shampoo bottles and we liked it!
Your argument is reasonable, although I don’t think the fact that Google is aligned with the USA and Western Europe is a coincidence. This anti-trust action is itself a demonstration of the power that the US government does have over Google, and Google knows better than to provoke the use of that power. Anti-trust law is largely a matter of the government’s opinion rather than objective rules, so Google has no effective legal defense other than keeping the government’s opinion of it favorable.
I don’t think Google could get away with deliberately manipulating elections in the way that you propose. Even if it were to tilt the outcome from one established party to another, that party would not be beholden to it. (If the party that it helped knew that it helped, then unless that party controlled Google, it would rightly consider Google a threat rather than an ally.) Furthermore, manipulating elections would have a huge risk of being revealed and facing devastating blowback. Engineers rather than the board of directors are the ones who actually make Google function and those engineers would be neither oblivious to nor loyal to some plan for domination by the board of directors.
With that said, I disagree with you primarily because I’m very risk-averse when it comes to matters like this. Right now, the “juggernaut like Google that is The Internet” is working in our favor and if we break it up then we won’t have a juggernaut working in our favor anymore. We would be better off if we were able to accomplish what you propose while retaining dominance of the internet, but IMO the reward is not worth the risk of forfeiting that dominance. Those who are losing need to take risks but those who are winning should not, and right now the USA is winning.
I’m a little surprised to hear people so willing to let the government of Ireland determine who they are allowed to hate and for what reasons.