Comment NTSC (Score 1) 11
I like their business model but wow, the claws EU allowed Apple to have are quite something.
Hopefully businesses can offer different versions of their app to each set of 999,999 customers Especially hobby projects.
I like their business model but wow, the claws EU allowed Apple to have are quite something.
Hopefully businesses can offer different versions of their app to each set of 999,999 customers Especially hobby projects.
Some military guys project AI could be more deadly than nukes.
And we're trusting Zuck with it.
I won't return in coin by calling you an idiot, because I don't think you are one. What I think you are is too *ignorant* to realize you're talking about evolution. "Survival of the fittest" is a phrase coined by Herbert Spencer in 1864 to refer to natural selection, a concept that's in the actual *title* of Darwin's book.
His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) online portal.
With a click more potent than Cupid's arrow, the solicitor "issued a final order of divorce in proceedings between Mrs Williams, the applicant wife, and Mr Williams,"
And why is a lawyer the one finalizing the divorce order?
Shouldn't that power solely lie with the judge (or the judge's staff)?
Spot on.
More people will do real porn too, because they can always claim it was a fake.
Don't forget about Prima Nocta.
That creepy King Charles face on your wedding night...
Well, no *one* of us in a position to save the coral reefs. Not even world leaders can do it. But we *all* are in a position to do a little bit, and collectively all those little bits add up to matter.
Sure if you're the only person trying to reduce is carbon footprint you will make no difference. But if enough people do it, then that captures the attention of industry and politicians and shifts the Overton window. Clearly we can't save everything, but there's still a lot on the table and marginal improvements matter. All-or-nothing thinking is a big part of denialist thinking; if you can't fix everything then there's no point in fixing anything and therefore people say there's a problem are alarmists predicting a catastrophe we couldn't do anything about even if it weren't happening.
As to the loss of coral reefs not being the worst outcome of climate change, that's probably true, but we really can't anticiapte the impact. About a quarter of all marine life depends on coral reefs for some part of their life cycle. Losing all of it would likely be catastrophic in ways we can't imagine yet, but the flip side is that saving *some* of it is likely to be quite a worthwhile goal.
Well, you bringing *evolution* into the argument shows that your views are so far off base theyr'e not even wrong.
They are only addressing the economic argument, not the human rights argument.
Typical for EU bureaucrats.
ECB, World Bank, EU, BIS, IMF, NATO - one big incestuous club.
Some day
TIL:
apt-get install git-lfs
git-lfs clone (huggingface repo url)
regular git clone gives you tiny pointer files.
PS Thanks, Babs!
Sure, the planet does not care, but we're not asking what the *planet* should do, are we?
Of course this isn't science, it's just wishful thinking and hand waving about things you don't actually know much about. It's probably worth noting that actual reef scientists aren't so cheerful about the prospects for coral reefs as you are.
It's not even that what you *think* you know is necessarily wrong. You're talking about about something reef scientists aren't particulary worried about: the extinction of coral *species*. In other words it's a straw man. What scientists are worried about is something quite different: a massive reduction in the 348,000 square kilometers of coral reef habitat that currently exist.
That's something that will take millions of years to recover from, and which will cause countless extinctions It will result in multiple species extinctions; sure that's survival of the fittest, but "fittest" doesn't mean "better"; it means more fitted to specific set of new circumstances, in this case circumstances we *chose to create*. And sure, in a few million years it won't matter. But that's not the test we use to decide whether anything other issue needs addressing. If someone broke into your house and took a dump on your kitchen table, it wouldn't matter in a million years, but you'd sure report it to the cops and expect something to get done about it.
No, it's not evolution *at work*. It's human intervention in the environment at work. Sure, evolution will *respond* to this intervention; if you want to see *that* at work, go into suspended animation for a hundred thousand years.
You could argue that *humans* are part of nature and therefore anything we do is natural. That's just quibbling. By that argument it would be just as natural for us to choose not to shit in our own beds.
The headline can only be understood *after* reading the submission.
I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.