A small percentage of a few billion people is a big problem.

Yes, regardless of whether their name is Muhammed or Breivik.

Why not here? Because for starters, humanism isn't a religion (and I say that as a humanist). It's a philosophical stance within atheism. And atheism is the absence of religion** (it's literally right there in the name), not a religion. You can't claim "religious" exemptions as an atheist. What this person actually wants is a philosophical exemption, akin to, say, a vegetarian wanting an exemption from having to cook meat at a restaurant or whatnot.

** - Well, except for those atheists who worship Athe.

Yeah, nothing insular about the Amish.

(Oh wait...)

James P. Hogan wrote about some of these concerns in his 1979 sci-fi novel "The Two Faces of Tomorrow". Sadly the biggest taken-for-granted idea from his novel that now seems fantastical is that governments and engineers cared about AI safety over profit (i.e. the AI developers did not try to privatize most gains while socializing most costs and most risks). From the Goodreads blurb "Midway through the 21st century, an integrated global computer network manages much of the world's affairs. A proposed major software upgrade - an artificial intelligence - will give the system an unprecedented degree of independent decision-making, but serious questions are raised in regard to how much control can safely be given to a non-human intelligence. ..."

You raise a deep issue worthy of a lot of discussion when you say: " A post-scarcity economy is not necessarily an egalitarian one."

Your points also align with my sig: "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."

Monkeys are slightly faster than humans at visual processing:
https://monkeys.alloftheanimal...
"The average [monkey] visual reaction time is around 200ms to 300ms, with a median of around 215ms. ... The mean human reaction time to touch, auditory, and visual stimuli is 150 milliseconds, 170 milliseconds, and 250 milliseconds, respectively."

But dogs are much faster:
https://humanbenchmark.me/test...
"The table below shows approximate response times to visual or tactile stimuli, drawn from published research: ...
Dog 60-100 ms Behavioral studies
Human (trained) 150-200 ms Cognitive research
Human (average) 250-300 ms Our test data"

So, if dogs are at least two to three times faster than monkeys, (I had heard elsewhere dogs are about seven times faster than humans), that means maybe dogs are even faster than crows?

I have to wonder about cat reaction time too? The table says cats are like twice as fast as dogs:
"Cat (domestic) 20-70 ms Behavioral studies"

Faster reaction time might help dogs and especially cats catch birds to eat them?

Anyway, so I think the implication in the quote from the article that avian brains are generally faster then mammal brains may not be well-supported given not enough species (both avian and mammalian) were compared?

Nooo. It takes a lot more fuel to get to the sun than it does it get out of the solar system.

I know it sounds counterintuitive.

I think it's because investments make money but money itself loses value due to inflation.

If you have $100 you won't see much value loss in a year. If you have a million you are losing thousands just on inflation.

That whole story was never proven. Plenty of people say really crazy stuff for money.

I recently looked at building a new PC. RAM was half the cost. The price of RAM went absolutely mental.

Closer to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy tradition. All they need are the words "Don't Panic" on the front cover.

If it doesn't, it has no real value.

Almost nothing on Wikipedia is true, but all of it is "verifiable" in that there's at least one published source making the claim. Even if 99.9% of all other sources say the opposite.

(The Haka is not, for example, a war chant. Which is attested to, but because it's claimed to be online, it is "verifiable".)

The number of errors is huge, the number of "official editors" who know anything about the subject is extremely small, and this has always been the case. This is why nobody reputable cites Wikipedia. Wikipedia is where you go to find out what is potentially interesting, but you ALWAYS obtain the facts from elsewhere, if you've any sense.

Headline from 1845.

I use fastmail for a small company, not for my personal stuff. The cost is reasonable, their setup instructions are clear, I've never had a single issue.