Personally I give people a lot of camera slack. Where I live we often have a chance to photograph wildlife, and some of those things might only give you 7, maybe 9 seconds to react. There are some animals I've seen fairly often but have yet to get a reat pic of. It sounds a lot easier than it really is .

The definition of consciousness you're using mostly describes the attributes that consciousness displays, but doesn't actually define it. Consciousness is the emergent quality of direct perception. Instead of asking "Are you conscious?" You should change the question to be "What are you conscious of?" The difference is more than semantics. I am in a room, and I feel the temperature. I do not need to be told whether or not I'm hot, cold or comfortable. I also know that you are somewhere in a room but I am not conscious of the temperature there I'm only aware that the room your in has a temperature. An AI can never be conscious because you have to tell it what the temperature is and how to react. You are conscious because you do not have to be told those things. Yes, animals are conscious of the things they perceive, and so are plants. Dogs are conscious of a world of scents you cannot perceive. Plants are conscious of the direction sunlight is coming from and move to intercept it. The last point I want to make is that there is no such a thing as general consciousness you are merely conscious of something things and not others.

Smooth seas make poor sailors. The US is creating some outstanding Chinese sailors.

Here in Denmark the mobile connectivity is 5G with speeds that make anything I had in Austin Texas laughable. I also pay about half of what Verizon charged. The connectivity in Europe in general is much higher than I experienced in Texas. Go to Driftwood Texas and you'll be lucky to get a signal much less enough bandwidth to be useful.

The perl calendar entry for December 17th is probably just a page from book of Rorschach Test images.

I think a lot of us have that tendency. Humans are natural polyphasic sleepers. https://www.bbc.com/future/art...

Yeah! Also, why the hell should renters pay taxes so that middle class f-tards can get a write off for mortgage interest? Another thing, why should those gas guzzlers pay for road maintenance on behalf of those hippy electric car drivers? While we're at it, screw those kids who want to eat during the day if their parents can't afford it. Clearly the parents should be punished by starving the kid. It only makes sense. Now to be serious; do not be so short sighted and defensive. The libertarian fantasy is the most perversely unworkable fantasy in economics.

Yeah, about that.... https://www.thebalance.com/wha...

Pleading insanity leads to false pleadings. Rolling stops lead to a lack credibility with Stop signs. Taking a generous deduction invalidates tax law. Your post is a classic example of making the perfect be the enemy of the good. I don't have the time it would take to help you understand just how incorrect your logic is.

Such a naive argument. There are no gun laws at the border and guns can flow freely. Criminals don't always follow the legal laws but the ALWAYS follow laws regarding supply. According to your argument societies that heavily regulate firearms should have a greater number of civilian deaths. If you were even a little bit intellectually curious you'd Google the stats and see that your argument is fallacious. The United States is an embarrassment internationally. https://worldpopulationreview....

Please remember that the plural of anecdote is NOT data.

to block ISPs that attempt to extort them. Others have rightfully said that the customers are already paying for the bandwidth they're using, and afaict this is just a play for the deep pockets.

Any evidence? Any information backed reasoning behind that? Anything verifiable that we, as a community, can digest and act upon? If so then please share it, otherwise there are words that describe people that peddle in foolishness.

That's a pretty significant amount of hyperbole there dood. There are companies we're talking about; amoral beasts at their best, Enrons at their worst. To suggest that dual-employment (what better words?) is active sabotage implies something malicious that you're unable to prove. Dial it back a little, and make a good reasoned and provable argument.

Salaries stopped growing in pace with productivity sometime between 70 and 73; trailing ever since. There is little regard for people in the libertarian hellscape that has become modern employment. An employment world where non-competes, NDAs, and countless other mechanisms are deployed against the people that contribute to the success of the organization. If a few people manage to take advantage of "at will" employment this way, to further whatever goals they have then I raise a glass and say 'Good for you!' I hope that it works out for them, and that they don't have negative outcomes. For myself I hate context switching in one job, never mind two simultaneously.