OK.

But that's not the actual reason I don't use rust or go. The actual reason is that I don't trust downloading stuff off the net from sites that I don't feel are sufficiently monitored. I prefer stuff that resides in, e.g., a debian repository. (Also programming in rust feels like programming with one arm tied behind my back. Safety measures that only make sense when one is doing multi-threading being applied everywhere.)

C is pretty good at that, but I haven't seen statistics for Rust. I suppose all the complex stuff could be optimized away during compilation, but I don't know that it is.

Well, it's not measuring dates, but it's measuring steady intervals. And IIRC correctly, the scale if femtoseconds. (Nope, that was a laser-comb clock. Perhaps attoseconds.)

Good point, but probably not (directly) related to this study.

Yeah, it's not a good study. If nothing else (and there is much else) the sample size is too small.

OTOH, I find it difficult to understand why so many people seem to think it's "obviously wrong", when I would have predicted that result from a good study. People tend to be unreasonably biased, and not just about sex. There've been studies where two groups of people were divided at random. Those who ended up in each group tended to prefer their group over the other, even though the group didn't exist outside of the study. (I say that, but I don't know for sure that the folks didn't maintain their groups after the study was over...but it was a pretty short study.)

Lots of people anthropomorphize their car or motorcycle. It's one of the things people do.

That's a difference, it's just not a significant difference. It might well justify a larger study with more careful controls. But the result they produced is what I would have guessed, so I'm a bit biased.

Still, look at any sports team match. People tend to favor one side over the other for reasons that have nothing to do with skill.

I'm sure that's happening. I'm also sure it's only a part of the story. Some of the other posts have raised other contributory issues, like image quality. And actually I think your point is a valid example of a more general trend, i.e. people tend to favor those who are more socially approved. The reasons for the social approval are nearly irrelevant, but different groups within society will use different measures. (E.g. Catholics will tend to approve of different people than Unitarians, even if they adopt the same proposals.) Think of how some people rate their favorites sports team vs. the way they rate the other side.

That's a single data point. I've seen it be true, but I've also seen it be false. Also they tend to be differently Machiavellian, but I wouldn't say men were more Machiavellian than women, or the converse. Just that they tend to do it differently.

The study *is* flawed. The sample size is too small, and I doubt that the people tested replicate the world population average.

But it *is* "food for thought", and the result is the one I would have expected. People *do* tend to be biased in favor of the socially more approved of groups. (You don't need a study to prove that. Just read either the news or history, especially the history of a conflict.)

Do you really think those suggested biases aren't present? My guess would be that they are. People generally feel that "the superior group" deserves better treatment, where "superior group" is basically defined by public relations, with a large helping of "people like me".

Well, part of the answer is clearly "because the official stance of the US govt. is that AI should not be regulated". (Yeah, it's more nuanced than that, but that's the short form.)

That one actually has some science behind it. Not enough to trust, but some.

Well, it would lose all sensory and motor connections. Sometimes some of them reconnect over a period of several months...but many never do.

I think you die of various neural problems before the reconnection has a chance to get started. (And, of course, you've got a horrendous case of "bubble boy" syndrome for the rest of your life.)

IIUC, there are cells in the body that retain the "true copy". (I.e., they've duplicated VERY few times.) However, they therefore aren't widely distributed. This means no "local process" in most of the body has access to them. It's why women produce only a limited number of ova. S.a. Hayflick limit.