I get where you're coming from, and being hurt that way is completely valid.
But, your statement assumes you are the only person on the planet like that. If you're willing put someone else before you, unless you're completely unique, there is absolutely people out there with those exact traits, who would do the exact same for you. Obviously that's not an easy thing to find, and I understand your cynicism.
I agree that it's very possible, likely even, that the Christian seven deadly sins were heavily influenced by virtue ethics, the golden mean, etc. But the statement "the seven deadly sins predates Christianity" doesn't feel right imo.
While yes, the concept of virtues, identifying and espousing them definitely predate Christianity, the "seven deadly sins" is a very specific thing. While similar, they aren't the same so you cant really say that the concept of the seven deadly sins existed specifically before it was developed and spread by Christianity.
I don't think you're trying to say that the seven deadly sins specifically predate Christianity, just that the concept of identifying negative and detrimental traits and behaviours do. But it's easy to think you are conflating those at a glance. (Or maybe you are, I don't actually know.)
You have no sense of wonder or imagination, do you? We have been making robots for decades, and this is the first time we have ever made humanoid ones which is able to outperform actual humans in this way. At last year's robot games, the highest one was able to jump was under a meter, and now they can beat the human world record of 2.45 meters.
That's absolutely phenomenal engineering, and it's completely reductive to equate it to completely different technologies that exist to solve completely different problems. It's phenomenal in the same way that it was phenomenal when we created the first chess bot that a human was unable to defeat.
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of an implication? Within the common cultural context of the English speaking internet, the implication of that statement is very clear. And just making that implication, is in of itself a judgement.
For example: "you would look good in some cement shoes" without cultural context, that doesn't imply very much. With the cultural context/understanding that many of us have, that's a death threat.
You can't seperate the technology from the company in this case. The complete violation of privacy is baked into the technology with no way to seperate it. The companies practices are baked into the technology with no way to seperate it. Which also applies to most technologies.
If you think we can/should seperate the technology from the company that makes it, you're incredibly naive. The privacy violations are an inherent feature of the technology itself.
You didn't read that study very thoroughly did you?
The difference between black cars and white cars was less than 1%.
Beyond that, the study you linked is looking at all car crashes, whereas the Australian study is specifically comparing daylight, dusk/dawn, and dark. Dusk and dawn are the periods of the day where visibility is lower but not completely gone and not every driver is putting their headlights on appropriately considering the light conditions.
The amount of times I've seen a car without headlights on, right when it's really starting to get dark or early in the morning is concerning. And under these conditions it's harder to see a black car without headlights than most other colours.
Our eyesight works the same no matter where in the world you are. So there's no reason this would be much different country to country unless circumstances were different (e.g. headlights being mandatory at all times.)
Also, there is someone else in this thread stating their personal experience is exact opposite to you. Which is why we don't use a single source of data points to reach conclusions.
Those are individual data points from a single source. You are one person out of many.
You can't just say because your personal experience goes against what's most likely, doesn't change the statitcs. For example:
Gingers are more likely to get skin cancer, I'm a ginger that has never had skin cancer, while living in the skin cancer Capitol of the world, and I personally know a person who is not a ginger who had skin cancer. Does that mean the statistics are wrong?
Must be nice being in a place where you can be picky about what job you take. I've been unemployed for over 12 months now and would take basically anything at this point regardless of my morals.
I've literally never installed an operating system. I can pretty confidently say that most of the people I know have never installed an operating system either.
I probably could follow all those steps because I've had experience navigating my computer's BIOS, but most people don't even know what a BIOS is. To ask them to navigate and make sense of it without detailed instructions is pretty unfair.
The fediverse is a very niche place, and the general tech savvyness that's common here should not be taken as an actual measure of how tech savvy the general population is.
Technically, calling different distributions of Linux "versions of Linux" is completely accurate based on the definition of the word "version," and based on how the word is generally used in every day speech.
You're just being pedantic. Which is completely valid, I'm also being very pedantic.
For now.
I get where you're coming from, and being hurt that way is completely valid.
But, your statement assumes you are the only person on the planet like that. If you're willing put someone else before you, unless you're completely unique, there is absolutely people out there with those exact traits, who would do the exact same for you. Obviously that's not an easy thing to find, and I understand your cynicism.
That's very interesting.
I agree that it's very possible, likely even, that the Christian seven deadly sins were heavily influenced by virtue ethics, the golden mean, etc. But the statement "the seven deadly sins predates Christianity" doesn't feel right imo.
While yes, the concept of virtues, identifying and espousing them definitely predate Christianity, the "seven deadly sins" is a very specific thing. While similar, they aren't the same so you cant really say that the concept of the seven deadly sins existed specifically before it was developed and spread by Christianity.
I don't think you're trying to say that the seven deadly sins specifically predate Christianity, just that the concept of identifying negative and detrimental traits and behaviours do. But it's easy to think you are conflating those at a glance. (Or maybe you are, I don't actually know.)
Do you have a proper substantive source for the seven deadly sins predating Christianity?
I'm legitimately curious here, because I can't find anything that supports that claim.
What are you talking about? You do realise this is the country that elected Trump twice, right?
You have no sense of wonder or imagination, do you? We have been making robots for decades, and this is the first time we have ever made humanoid ones which is able to outperform actual humans in this way. At last year's robot games, the highest one was able to jump was under a meter, and now they can beat the human world record of 2.45 meters.
That's absolutely phenomenal engineering, and it's completely reductive to equate it to completely different technologies that exist to solve completely different problems. It's phenomenal in the same way that it was phenomenal when we created the first chess bot that a human was unable to defeat.
Most doesn't mean or imply more than half, its the largest group, or greatest in quantity, biggest piece, etc.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/most
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/most
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/most
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/most
I think it's supposed to be you see less AI posts because they've improved to the point that it's harder to tell what is and isn't AI.
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of an implication? Within the common cultural context of the English speaking internet, the implication of that statement is very clear. And just making that implication, is in of itself a judgement.
For example: "you would look good in some cement shoes" without cultural context, that doesn't imply very much. With the cultural context/understanding that many of us have, that's a death threat.
Why would they do that if they can make more money the way they did it, while facing no consequences?
You can't seperate the technology from the company in this case. The complete violation of privacy is baked into the technology with no way to seperate it. The companies practices are baked into the technology with no way to seperate it. Which also applies to most technologies.
If you think we can/should seperate the technology from the company that makes it, you're incredibly naive. The privacy violations are an inherent feature of the technology itself.
Because male nurses are uncommon and in that specific circumstance female is the default that most people assume.
If your only measure of success is wealth, that's kind of sad.
If your only measure of success is wealth, that's kind of sad.
We're not speaking Icelandic right now. Should I randomly put Japanese katakana in english sentences just because it's テchnically phonetically コrrect?
You didn't read that study very thoroughly did you?
The difference between black cars and white cars was less than 1%.
Beyond that, the study you linked is looking at all car crashes, whereas the Australian study is specifically comparing daylight, dusk/dawn, and dark. Dusk and dawn are the periods of the day where visibility is lower but not completely gone and not every driver is putting their headlights on appropriately considering the light conditions.
The amount of times I've seen a car without headlights on, right when it's really starting to get dark or early in the morning is concerning. And under these conditions it's harder to see a black car without headlights than most other colours.
Our eyesight works the same no matter where in the world you are. So there's no reason this would be much different country to country unless circumstances were different (e.g. headlights being mandatory at all times.)
Also, there is someone else in this thread stating their personal experience is exact opposite to you. Which is why we don't use a single source of data points to reach conclusions.
Those are individual data points from a single source. You are one person out of many.
You can't just say because your personal experience goes against what's most likely, doesn't change the statitcs. For example:
Gingers are more likely to get skin cancer, I'm a ginger that has never had skin cancer, while living in the skin cancer Capitol of the world, and I personally know a person who is not a ginger who had skin cancer. Does that mean the statistics are wrong?
Must be nice being in a place where you can be picky about what job you take. I've been unemployed for over 12 months now and would take basically anything at this point regardless of my morals.
I've literally never installed an operating system. I can pretty confidently say that most of the people I know have never installed an operating system either.
I probably could follow all those steps because I've had experience navigating my computer's BIOS, but most people don't even know what a BIOS is. To ask them to navigate and make sense of it without detailed instructions is pretty unfair.
The fediverse is a very niche place, and the general tech savvyness that's common here should not be taken as an actual measure of how tech savvy the general population is.
Technically, calling different distributions of Linux "versions of Linux" is completely accurate based on the definition of the word "version," and based on how the word is generally used in every day speech.
You're just being pedantic. Which is completely valid, I'm also being very pedantic.