Technically, yes. Practically, it’s complicated. It doesn’t really exist within the same ecosystem as other Linux distros.

It’s not as different as Android (which is also technically a Linux distribution), but running a normal DE and all the programs that come with it is very clearly still an advanced user thing locked behind knowledge of how bash and virtual environments work.

Hey, just went back to this conversation now that the UNESCO report claims that the highway construction project is putting Stonehenge in real danger. What’s your opinion on that?

I’m not a lawyer, first of all! I’m not very knowledgeable either.

Mens rea, as far as I understand it, definitely doesn’t apply here. Bringing it into question undermines the case if you’re trying to build a conviction around it. Better to have a wide variety of provable smaller claims than one big ticket item you’re doomed to fail, as far as I understand it.

Never happening, but even if it was wouldn’t the correct charge be criminal negligence? It’s not like the companies killed those people in a calculated, pre-meditated way. They’re “just” externalities.

Does it come with a coupon for their hitman service too?

destroying paintings and monoliths

But… they didn’t do either of those things. They threw soup at glass, and for the Stonehenge thing they used washable powder paint. They were publicity stunts with no damage done.

In Romania, quite rare. Maybe one every 3-4 months. They’re clearly identifiable as spam calls, at least on my phone, so they’re easy to avoid.

hay, grass or silage

All of the above, as well as other feeds such as corn. That percentage includes pastures and growing crops for feed. Here’s a pretty good breakdown.

Interestingly enough, if someone doesn’t care at all about veganism but wants to reduce agricultural land use, removing beef, lamb and dairy from their diet would be enough to get there (while continuing to eat chicken, fish, etc).

sweeping, emotional appeals

I don’t think my comment was very emotionally charged.

Surely, there are stronger arguments against eating meat than that

The power of an argument is determined by the reader. There’s compelling reasons in terms of zoonotic diseases and rampant antibiotic use, there’s other reasons from a moral point of view, there’s others in terms of environment (like this argument), there’s others in terms of human health, etc. Which one is convincing to which person depends entirely on what that person cares about.

Yeah, that does sound very comparable to what I was talking about. Your example and mine both do not have the state deciding what university you apply to though, which is what I understood from “the state decides what you’ll study”.

No, I’m disagreeing. You could study anything you wanted, not what the state wanted. It was just hard to get a slot.

I guess it’s similar to how it’s incredibly hard to get a scholarship at a great university today. You’d hardly say that the modern scholarship system “forces you to study what the state wants”.

This is not true. At least here in Romania, the issue with colleges under communism was that there were VERY limited slots, so you had to either be the best of the best or have a high up party member in the family or as a close personal friend.

Yeah, it’s not a conceptually big leap to go from bows to “why don’t we put in a stick to keep the bow drawn rather than doing it ourselves?”. Crossbows can be more complex than that, but fundamentally that’s the concept.

Over 70% of farmland worldwide is used to make animal feed for the ranching industry, so if you’re not eating meat you’re already doing your bit to reduce the environmental impact of agriculture.

to have this relationship between A and B you have to make a third database

Probably just a mistake here, but you make a third table, not a new database.

Apart from that (and the fact that one to many and many to one is the same thing), yeah, looks correct.

Belarus revealed the plans at the beginning of the war to go into Moldova right after Ukraine, so yes. That was exactly the plan

While most people are understandably pumped about the accession talks withs Ukraine, I think I can speak for the majority of Romanians when I say that this is an amazing step towards safety and security for Moldova. Our little brother deserves more than just being used as a political battleground by Russia.

Even the question of “who” is a fascinating deep dive in and of itself. Consciousness as an emergent property implies that your gut microbiome is part of the “who” doing the thinking in the first place :))

So, first of all, thank you for the cogent attempt at responding. We may disagree, but I sincerely respect the effort you put into the comment.

The specific part that I thought seemed like a pretty big claim was that human brains are “simply” more complex neural networks and that the outputs are based strictly on training data.

Is it not well established that animals learn and use reward circuitry like the role of dopamine in neuromodulation?

While true, this is way too reductive to be a one to one comparison with LLMs. Humans have genetic instinct and body-mind connection that isn’t cleanly mappable onto a neural network. For example, biologists are only just now scraping the surface of the link between the brain and the gut microbiome, which plays a much larger role on cognition than previously thought.

Another example where the brain = neural network model breaks down is the fact that the two hemispheres are much more separated than previously thought. So much so that some neuroscientists are saying that each person has, in effect, 2 different brains with 2 different personalities that communicate via the corpus callosum.

There’s many more examples I could bring up, but my core point is that the analogy of neural network = brain is just that, a simplistic analogy, on the same level as thinking about gravity only as “the force that pushes you downwards”.

To say that we fully understand the brain, to the point where we can even make a model of a mosquito’s brain (220,000 neurons), I think is mistaken. I’m not saying we’ll never understand the brain enough to attempt such a thing, I’m just saying that drawing a casual equivalence between mammalian brains and neural networks is woefully inadequate.

That’s a strong claim. Got an academic paper to back that up?

This is why I strictly refer to these things as LLMs. That’s what they are.