AlotOfReading

Genesis is pretty clear that Egypt came after the flood. Noah had sons with him. One of them, Ham fathered Africans. Noah's grandson Mizraim was the father of all Egyptians.

Some early Christians reconciled that with the obvious age of the pyramids by guessing that the pyramids predated the flood and modern Egyptians were simply a new population, but no one's seriously argued that in literal millennia.

It does, but in less significant ways that are easier to work around.

I'm not the one who posted the initial response, I'm just explaining what they meant.

Also, this isn't intended to be dismissive or insulting because I recognize that everyone comes from different backgrounds and experiences, but it's pretty widely known that different crops have different labor costs. Everyday is a chance to learn something new though. Here's a quick overview from UC Davis on the subject.

I'd also recommend the book Fresh Fruit, Broken Bodies if you want a more personal, on-the-ground understanding of (some of) the human costs of agriculture. Understand that no book can cover everything though and there's much worse costs than anything it covers.

None of this human cost is inherently related to concepts like monocropping either. Rather, they're related to the economic and political context agriculture exists in, especially how those impact current mechanisation capabilities. Harvesting things like cereals is so efficient in large part because of the huge demand from livestock agriculture for cheap feedstock to justify the development/purchase of things like combine harvesters.

Some crops aren't heavily mechanized though, and modern agriculture hires cheap laborers instead. These tend to be the expensive things at the grocery store for fairly obvious reasons, but not always. If you're buying Spanish produce in Europe (e.g. bell peppers), there's a reasonable chance it was harvested by migrant workers working under inhumane conditions in a greenhouse. Things like coconuts tend to have slavery and animal cruelty in their supply chains and that's the basis for a good chunk of cuisine in South Asia.

Another way to directly tie specific crops to their human costs is to look at the daily dead body reports by US border patrol. They tend to spike a couple weeks before/after certain crop harvests. Strawberries and tomatoes show up particularly strongly in this kind of analysis, which is why I mentioned them. You can also see the spikes from things like grapes, lettuce and beans.

It's true that plant based diets use fewer resources (inherently true because of net productivity works), but it's not what the parent comment is talking about. Fodder crops are not hand harvested. They're harvested with big machines as cheaply as possible. If you add another acre or 20 of barley to the world, there may not be a single additional person helping to harvest it.

The parent comment is drawing a contrast with human crops like tomatoes and strawberries that are typically harvested by backbreaking manual labor.

There is independent government oversight. That's NHTSA, the agency doing these investigations. The companies operating these vehicles also have insurance as a requirement of public operating permits (managed by the states). NHTSA also requires mandatory reporting of accidents involving these vehicles and has safety standards.

The only thing missing is the fee, and I'm not sure what purpose that's supposed to serve. Regulators shouldn't be directly paid by the organizations they're regulating.

Standardized tests are normalized, so...

Just for context, a large chunk of "top tech talent" at the companies in the study are going to be making 200-400k. While there's still going to be issues with pay, it's a pretty different situation than fast food workers or similar.

WSL is just a well integrated VM running Linux. It's mainly intended for CLI tools, but there's nothing preventing you from e.g. running an X server and having programs appear in the Windows "window manager".

The super key is largely inaccessible though. It's tied very deeply into Windows, which is still the one talking to the keyboard.

I'm not assuming it's going to fail, I'm just saying that the exponential gains seen in early computing are going to be much harder to come by because we're not starting from the same grossly inefficient place.

As an FYI, most modern computers are modified Harvard architectures, not Von Neumann machines. There are other architectures being explored that are even more exotic, but I'm not aware of any that are massively better on the power side (vs simply being faster). The acceleration approaches that I'm aware of that are more (e.g. analog or optical accelerators) are also totally compatible with traditional Harvard/Von Neumann architectures.

ML is not an ENIAC situation. Computers got more efficient not by doing fewer operations, but by making what they were already doing much more efficient.

The basic operations underlying ML (e.g. matrix multiplication) are already some of the most heavily optimized things around. ML is inefficient because it needs to do a lot of that. The problem is very different.

There's probably a bunch of reasons for the multi wing design, but the big one is going to be improving lift/carrying capacity without increasing the width.

The most efficient wings for low speeds are glider wings: as long and thin as possible. That makes them inconvenient to pack and folding joints are weak points. The second wing adds lift, but also problems: it's less efficient than a single wing of the combined length would be and the front wing makes the rear wing less efficient. The winglet improves the situation somewhat. Facing downward also improves maneuverability.

It's a little weird and very European, so OpenSUSE.