evolutionary wise, very far into the future would we develop different mouths and very few teeth? Pills as food wouldn't ever catch on, people like too much about food to just settle on eating pills for the rest of their lives. Even though there is a niche who enjoy huel.

Ice floating and cooling the upper part of a drink should start a natural convection type cycle which cools the whole drink. If the ice sank, you'd have a very warm surface layer. Never thought about this with focus before 😅

and antlers are therefore karmawhoring.

Reddit would become compatible with Lemmy essentially making it it's own "instance", and suddenly 3rd party apps work with Reddit again. Full circle.

I created this community because it was my favorite on Reddit and I couldn't find one on Lemmy. If the mods from reddit want to to moderate this community, I am happy to welcome them. They do a great job!

Back in my day, you had to know exactly how long, in minutes, three separate movies were in length to see if they'd fit on one cassette. Recording VHS tapes was a unknowingly wild time in human history.

Necessary, but not sufficient condition though. Sweden tried in the winter, and failed for example.

started thinking about it unironically in the shower, but then it all spiraled till I got this. Throughout the whole history of humanity, most of the language and information were passed through personal one on one interactions. Where disagreement was personal. In the modern age of the internet. Both right and left, rich and poor, have destroyed that. To be a successful scientist before, you needed to learn how to transmit your ideas not only on paper, but also in a conference room filled with tens of people. Nowadays, modern scientists are struggling to even speak, as social anxiety induced by the social separation of the internet makes them publish any of their studies on online platforms. This involves costs not only for the scientists but for the society as a whole. As simply using a source of a science article that is published by a big name now makes you right and the other person wrong. I myself am still debated on this issue. But what touches me the most is the political debate. Both right and left have sunk into the deep pit of awful, gut wrenching, poisonous and hazardous debates that do not impose a greater meaning than to gain a popular majority. People such as Vaush, Hasanabi and many others construct themselves on the basis of debating on the internet. Most awful detail being that their debate is mostly just critique of a video. While the right in what I’ve personally seen is just as awful, or in my opinion even more. They use nonsensical, straw-man and other logical fallacies filled arguments that do not impose or add anything to the greater picture. Even debates in real life are now a vomit-fest. Biggest example being the Trump and Biden debate. People didn’t even consider it as one and turned it into a joke. Real life debates are now filled with either animalistic screaming or the unacceptance of either one's platform. It leads nowhere and the result of it is minimal at best. I’m afraid for the future of debates and what it might lead to. Debates are dead and we killed them, but what shall we kill next? Please prove me wrong, I'm going to sleep with this horrible thought that I hate.

There was a period of time when people had to memorize the alphabet before there was a song.

Here in the US, the Republican political party is called conservative and the Democratic party is called liberal. These two words have meanings. Definition 1 for conservative at Oxford Languages is: "Averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.. Definition 2 is: "(In a political context) favoring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas. Okay. And then we have Republicans in Congress labeling Democrats "the enemy." The traditional term for the other political party (in the US and some other countries) is "the loyal opposition." There's nothing conservative about painting the half the country that you disagree with "the enemy." We have some prominent Republicans admitting that Hitler had a point as well. Nothing traditional in that. Heck, in Germany this might require a prison sentence. They're also in a moral uproar over immigrants. Even legal ones. And then we have Democrats. They support LGBT rights and the self determination of pregnant women. There have been abortions almost as long as there have been births. There is something very traditional about abortion. We also have the Statue of Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" There are no exceptions here. It doesn't say "unless you are gay," or anything similar. We've also got Republicans firebombing and having shooting sprees. (Yes, there is the occasional Democrat here, but it's the exception that proves the rule.) These, like many of their other actions are *radical*, not conservative. Radicals by definition are not conservative. By definition, radical means: "a person who advocates thorough or complete political or social reform; a member of a political party or part of a party pursuing such aims." Let's think a bit about how overturning Roe v. Wade after 50 years is a radical change. How about all those new anti-transgender laws that are being signed into law? I'm a trans dyke who's married. Marriage is utterly conservative. While we might not want to admit it, gay folk have been around forever too. So traditional. So what's up with those radicals? Why are they demanding to live in the 1950s? Turning back time 70 years is quite radical and puts all of society in turmoil. These are not the plans of conservative people.

Makes sense, both are neural networks after all...

It's not the kids, not the lurkers, not the mods... y'all just nice people. Lemmy's got a good vibe going... or at least enough windows that we can close if the vibe gets shit.

In the spirit of Lemmy/federation giving more power to the users. I want to let the users of this community vote on our first candidate for a new mod. This is a little risky because there has not been much time for community to form, but I think its a chance to set a good precedence. # Voter information The candidate for a new mod: [lemmy.world/u/forkball](lemmy.world/u/forkball) My arguments for adding them as a mod: - Assuming its the same person, reddit.com/u/forkball was an active reddit user since 2011. And from briefly scanning their history on reddit and Lemmy, they seem like a good level headed person. I think they would be a good mod, but the voice of the community is what matters. - I have no mod experience and was always a complete reddit lurker, so it would be good to have a very active community member as a mod. My arguments for not adding them: - Y'all are chill and not causing a lot of work for me. So at this instant I can handle the work load. Not sure how long that will last though. # How to place a vote I hope to avoid bots so voting will take some effort. To place a vote you must comment on this post (I wont count nested comments). Your comment must begin with "YES:" or "NO:" followed by no less than 4 words justifying your vote. Votes must be submitted before June 29 at 06:00 UTC. If we have more YES votes than NO votes, u/forkball will become a mod. Here are examples of valid voting comments: "YES: because forkball both showers and thinks!" "NO: because they didn't give me an up doot" # Fineprint Lemmy and moderating is still new to me so if this ends up being a really dumb move on my part for some reason I cannot foresee, I reserve the right to bail on this idea and try another method for community input. Things would need to get really nuts for me to bail on this vote. I don't expect a huge number of votes, but if im wrong, it may take some time to tally the votes. # Edits - It seems implied, but only one vote per username. Feel free to report duplicates. I will also try to publish the counted votes so people can validate my tally.

To be clear I’m not expert. But I know a bit. The way LLMs (like ChatGPT, GPT-4, etc) work, is that they continuously decide what the next best-sounding word might be, and they print it, over and over and over, until it makes sentences and paragraphs. And the way that next-word decision works under the hood, is with a deep neural net that was initially a theoretical tool designed to imitate the neural circuits that make up our biological nervous system and brain. The actual code for LLMs is rather small, it’s just about storing and managing representations of a neuron, and rearranging the connections between neurons as it learns more; just like the brain does. I was listening to the first part of this “This American Life” episode this morning that covers it really well: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/this-american-life/id201671138?i=1000618286089 In it, Microsoft AI experts also express excitement and confusion about how GPT-4 seems to actually reason about things, rather than just bullshitting the next word to make it look like it reasons, like it’s supposed to be designed to do. And so I was thinking: the reason why it works might be the other way around. It’s not that LLMs are smart enough to reason instead of bullshit, it’s that human’s reasoning actually works out of constantly bullshitting too, one word at a time. Imitate the human brain exactly, and I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that we land with a familiar-looking kind of intelligence - or lack thereof. Right?

If anything, cannabis seems like a much better (and more profitable) drug around which to build a leisurely establishment.

Damn, missed my chance to have it be a date I'd remember for a change.

Maybe spez is intentionally destroying Reddit. Because all their moves are illogical. It doesn't make sense.

How much would it cost to put someone to sleep on a submersible not rated for immediate-pink-mist depths?

Exposure to nature is healing and soothing. People recovering in hospitals spend a lot of time waiting. I think it would be great if live nature cam feeds were made available in hospitals and patients could text to a number when species appear or events happen. A portion of the screen would display the picture and name of the species to look out for and the code you need to text to the number.