If religion and human technology are any guide, there will be a lot of this but it will never be the entire sum of human activity. Some of us are just too damn curious. We go straight for the curtain. I refuse to believe that very human pattern won’t continue.
I don’t think Marijuana is likely to land you in the ED in quite the same way but the habitual smokers I’ve met tended to way underestimate how impaired they are by it and I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of them drive and operate equipment while suffering those effects. Even the framing of Marijuana as a non-addictive substance seems to be a marketing framing.
You customarily spit out that saliva that’s been in contact with your dip. Swallowing it is way worse for you. When I framed houses the guys that chewed would leave a little trail of brown spots everywhere.
> You customarily spit out that saliva that’s been in contact with your dip
I don't think this is necessarily true everywhere/for everyone, it's really not common in Sweden to walk around spitting just because you have tobacco under your lip, as people sit in offices and stuff with this in their mouth, can't really go around a spit indoors.
I can't speak for Sweden (I've never been), but typically all the people I've known in the US who dip regularly can be found with some kind of fast food cup they carry around with them as their "dip cup". It'll look like they're just taking a swig of some random drink, but in reality they're spitting.
Yeah, that used to be common in the rural/country-side maybe 30 years ago or so in Sweden, you'll see zero people walking around in offices spitting in cups in Sweden today, although tons of people use (synthetic and non-synthetic) snus all the time.
> I bought a mini CD boom box for the house. My oldest loves bringing it around to different rooms, plugging it in, and putting in a CD. I bought her the K-Pop Demon Hunters CD for her birthday. The local public library has CDs! CDs are awesome.
Yoto players pretty neatly reproduce the old experience of putting something physical into a player for my toddler. He’ll probably graduate to a CD player when he’s older but right now he can pick from a set of cards and hear music or a story.
It makes sense. Otherwise people would never become monks in certain sects, because there’s an innate indignity to poverty but subsuming yourself to a higher purpose negates the indignity.
> I would have rather seen that spent on giving lunch to every school age child or paying graduate students a wage above poverty level. At least something useful would have been accomplished
Yeah I guess the only thing we’ll give away for free these days is $100,000 bombs.
That would require an act of Congress. So implicitly, the majority party in the House and Senate don’t want to do this. Ask yourself, who is in power right now?
The post boxes were more about crippling mail-in votes. In Washington Bill De Joy had at one point dismantled several of the sorting machines which dramatically slowed how fast mail gets dispatched. The result was that you could no longer mail your vote the day before election day and have it arrive on election day.
I can attest that a lot of “car culture” and “motorcycle culture” people want the car or motorcycle to be as loud as possible. Where I live they’re frequently interrupting conversations and waking children up. It’s a major nuisance.
So basically there are rules, we just can’t articulate them and so we can’t decode them from the weights. The Goedel Numbering metaphor is pretty appealing to me. You can represent any finite series of real numbers with a series of computations performed on some other finite series of real numbers. We just happen to be using matrices because the math is easy to parallelize. The trick is to realize that when you know the sequence you have and the sequence you want then you can compute the calculations. If you constrain the calculations to only matrix multiplication then you arrive at the scheme we have.
> You can represent any finite series of real numbers with a series of computations performed on some other finite series of real numbers.
That statement caught my eye. It's either trivially true or quite clearly wrong, depending on how you mean it.
In the literal meaning it's true. Given any finite set of real numbers, I can easily produce a different set (like taking the original set and adding a number which wasn't in there like one plus the largest or so) from which you can trivially produce the original set computationally.
But if you mean you give me both sets then that can't be true. For example if you give me a single real number as set A and the empty set as set B then I can't create a program which generates set A from set B. Your real number in set A could encode anything.
> For example if you give me a single real number as set A and the empty set as set B then I can't create a program which generates set A from set B. Your real number in set A could encode anything.
And that’s why in computation theory, the set of symbols is the union of the input and output. As set B is a subset of set A, then the set that govern any program from B to A has set A as its domain.
reply