palebluethought

The question is not really whether the software will be "better." In most cases, you only compile from source if you have a specific situation where you need, or think you might benefit from, some specific non-default build option. Or if you don't trust the provider of pre built releases for whatever reason.

It's basically impossible to overfeed an infant. Like you say, they mostly know when to stop, and they'll just spit up whatever they can't handle.

It's a community for making fun of people who completely missed the joke. They are telling you that you are being dumb for not understanding that it's a joke.

There are two thresholds that matter: "rich" is where you no longer have to really think much about money on a day to day basis, and "wealthy" is where you no longer have to work for a living. Both thresholds depend on your expenses and the lifestyle you're looking for, I guess

People on Lemmy will believe literally anything you tell them as long as you make it about a corporation or billionaire.

The example in the OP is very obviously food grade plastic, specifically engineered for those use cases

The vast majority of those gun related deaths are accidents with parents' guns at home. School shootings are obviously much more prevalent here than elsewhere but they are still exceedingly rare, with perceived frequency amplified by the level of news coverage and the size of the country. I have two kids and feel strongly that parents spending any real thought worrying about school shootings (on a personal level, I mean, not a political one) is wasting their time. The cumulative effect of it probably makes schools worse

There are no specific questions defining a Turing test. It's just generally "can the average person tell the difference between this bot and a real person?" It doesn't go any deeper than that.

It's also not actually some kind of "definitive" test of consciousness, the way it's depicted in pop culture. Literally someone just asked Turing what a good way to test for machine consciousness might be, and this was the first thing that came to mind. It does not have any particular scientific significance. It just makes for splashy headlines because it's a thing a lot of people have heard of.

1. this will save precisely zero lives
2. you ignore the broader impact of allowing brazen broad-daylight murder to be endorsed by the public under any conditions. It is not just this one life
3. insurance is a mess and I am sure this guy was a dick, and that UHC denies plenty of claims that should be accepted. But at risk of pointing out the obvious, an insurance company that never denies any claims will go bankrupt immediately, and would therefore result in many more deaths since nobody would be covered.

As large as Walmart is, it is still absolute peanuts compared to the scale and (especially) dynamism of global production and consumption as a whole. Global supply chains have to change much faster and in arbitrary ways, compared to the centralized chains of something like Walmart, which in turn is also still subject to the external pressures of competition -- even just hypothetical competition based on some hypothetical course of action is a powerful constraint.

Lots of reasons, but here's one:

Because one of, if not the main purpose of money is to provide a decentralized way of transferring information about economic needs and capabilities. Without that mechanism in place, the only way of determining where goods can be created and where they need to go (a massive problem that it is a daily miracle we don't generally have to deal with) is by an overbearing authoritarian state.

Does it count as "herfriend" if it's obviously made up to be a herfriend post