I think the point is that it’s difficult to attribute that to communism in any meaningful way where you’re comparing it to non-communism. Like if those 100 million people would have died anyway, how to do you say ‘it was communism that did it’ since maybe more would have died under the next most likely form of government that would have been in it’s place. How many people have died for Democracy, assuming that both world wars and countless other ones were fought to defend it.

This could be a great platform, but almost completely ruined by an unnecessarily pretentious font.

Maybe don’t draw art that you want to own on there?

Do you refuse to throw a piece of paper away because the landfill then owns it? If for any reason the thing you’re trying to convey is private and you want to retain ownership, then obviously don’t use it, and it’s great for you to call that out so others are aware. But to vehemently dismiss some functionality because you don’t find the utility worth the cost is short sighted and childish.

Tuvo Tornado has been practically plug and play for me. Be ready to spend a lot of time designing, printing, testing, redesigning, reprinting. Not necessarily because of the printer, but just a normal part of the process.

And don’t be afraid to print part of a design and stop the print just to verify the footprint or general dimensions are good. It takes extra time and guaranteed ‘failure’ from a fully usable part, but much better than waiting a full 5-10 hours for a full print just to realize the holes on the first layer are offset, or the walls are 5mm too close for your use case.

It’s not cheating, especially if it’s anonymous. More like the same lines of watching porn, just a more personal version.

If you were sending them to someone for some other reason it would be closer to cheating.

Narrator: It is the point of the strategy

‘But we told the pediatric hospital we were going to bomb them. All those children should have gone somewhere else’ - Israel (probably)

They’re not set up by the prison, you still have to arrange the visitor yourself. If you can manage that on death row, one might assume you could do just as well outside of prison?

If it’s just a verbal interface to a smartphone it’s going to be a waste of time. There are a lot of people who do feel comfortable blabbering their thoughts out loud regardless of their surroundings, but that seems to have a big overlap with people wanting attention.

If it’s truly ‘AI’, it should be able to incorporate what truly works for people, whether that means speech to text for outbound messages, summarizing long emails for inbound, gestures, haptics, anticipating time based tasks, to making up meal plans when it recognizes you’re adding random items to your shopping list and looking up a dozen recipes, and figuring out what alarms and alerts actual get your attention for things you actually treat as important vs the ones you mark as important and then snooze a dozen times. If it actually starts with AI, it might recognize what alert you need to see on your computer and what notifications it can wait to show when your on the toilet….that future is awesome and scary and will probably make some billionaires before it wipes out humanity or turns us into infants crying to have our diapers changed as it takes over everything else.

Maybe because you haven’t seen an AI first designed ‘anything’. I doubt they really have a sense of what it is either, but if they actually did take what is incorrectly, but popularly, phrased as ‘AI’ and built a personal communication platform from it, I think it would be different enough that you saying ‘it’s not worth it’ before having any sense of what it is, is premature in the most literal sense.

Mostly it’s because, information wise, it’s almost nearly “free” to take a design and duplicate it…bilateral symmetry is natures version of copy/paste.

With that in mind, it’s likely that non-‘bilaterally symmetrical’ organisms relatively regularly spontaneously develop it due to random mutation. Just like we often randomly find people with extra fingers or only one set of organs, over millions of generations, bilateral symmetry will naturally just happen. The difference being, extra fingers or ‘more than two’ organs rarely offer any evolutionary advantage, especially in already complex forms.

Millions of years ago, however, very simple organisms suddenly having two brain lobes, two eyes, twice as many fins, two gills, etc….for free (informationally) and at only a relatively higher cost energy-wise could have found itself at a distinct advantage. If you can both run from predators and towards food twice as fast, and the energy cost isn’t twice as much, you’re suddenly the two legged guy at the ass kicking contest in a parade full of one legged people.

By the time those thing will have taken over, something else will be in their place. For certain values of ‘trains’, ‘urban’ and ‘micro mobility’, your claim will likely be true, but ithat is too vague to talk someone out of if that’s simply your stance.

There’s a tension and maybe responsiveness to skin and muscles that is uncanny when missing. Not sure many here could 100% recognize that very early on at the point of death, but at some point there is a wariness/unnatural look to the skin. Between that and our assumed ability to pick up on a complete lack of movement/breathing/pallor makes it reasonably certain that there is a “something” we recognize as missing, even if it’s hard to describe perfectly.

Well it kind of has to be satire, since it’s suggesting time travel as the shortcoming, but yeah, it is ridiculous how little care motorists pay to cycles. On the other hand, I’ve met plenty of cyclists acting just as entitled, blowing through signs and pedestrian crossing as though they have the same rights as a car, but for in situations where it’s more convenient, as though they don’t have to obey the same rules. And, of course, the situations where they are completely in the right, but so outmatched by tons of steel that being right only matters to their family in court. Operators of cars and bikes can both be distracted or make a mistake, but only one of them is likely to face life ending consequences in an interaction between the two of them.

Reasonably sure anyone who doesn’t speed because they are afraid of driving is committing driving violations left right and center out of timidity rather than speeding.

That looks pretty impressive. Imagine being on a Russian ship and considering whether dozens or hundreds of some medium tech ship busters might constantly be jetting towards you at any moment.

At best I think you could say that we have free will at the individual level, even though in the background that free will is driven by chemicals and quantum interactions. Just like a car doesn’t have free will because it’s inanimate, it also isn’t solely jostled around by the environment because it is powered and steered in its own self contained manner. You can keep going down a level and point to this choice being driven by this neuron firing or that sensory input overriding some reflex, but since free will is just a an English phrase coined long before we had any idea of the mechanics, is fair to say that at some level we’re driving our lives in comparison to any external force, and that predestination is so incomprehensible at our level as to be meaningless and “that” is free will, while at the same time there’s nothing above or outside of our consciousness and physics literally steering our mind against the stream of physics allowing us to “decide” to make a decision, rather than simply making a decision based on the infinite flowchart the universe is following.

All of that, of course, is outside the argument of whether all of physics is really predetermined or if it really is just infinities relative dice rolls every time one quantum bundle interacts with other.

When you phrase it that way, though, it makes the ‘you’ part stand out and in that regard you do have free will to do as you choose, it’s just an internal lack of ‘ethereal choices’ we’re lacking. The fact that if the choice were somehow “replayed”, you would make the same choice is kind of meaningless since we don’t experience that….the point at the quantum/chaos theory level is that there is no way to look at the current set of circumstances and say with any degree of certainty what your decision will be. Whether this involves some magic autonomy ‘above’ the chemical and quantum nature of your brain is just semantics as far as whether we’re the one ultimately in the drivers seat or whether we’re just experiencing things from what appears to be behind the wheel. Maybe think of it as sitting on the lap of the universe while we pretend to hit the gas and shift the gears.

Really is an interesting way to look at things. If you look at humans as an ‘organism’, it could be trivial to make massive shifts in output with relatively small changes in behavior. How to go about that might be unknown, but it doesn’t have to happen all at once or in one place. The fact that taking literally an extra minute of the day to deal with waste would double the amount of time we currently spend on it (at least roughly), shows what a huge impact just looking at this data in this way could have.

Lots of ankles in that picture…