gandalf_der_12te

joined 2 years ago
[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

The width of each row increases exponentially with their number.

Doesn't it only increase quadratically?

Since surface area of a sphere grows quadratically with radius ...

 

German wikipedia defines a biological species as a group where individuals can reproduce offspring with other members of the group, but not with individuals outside of the group.

First of all, to the best of my knowledge, proper sexual reproduction only happens with Eukaryotes. Then this means that no bacteria ever reproduce offspring with other individuals, and therefore each bacterium is its own species.

But that is a meaningless definition. If each bacterium is its own species, then the categorization into species becomes meaningless.

On top of that, bacteria have "pseudosexual" horizontal gene transfer (HGT) which allows them to exchange genetic material with any other bacterium (if the circumstances are right; if i understand this correctly). So all bacteria are in a single species if you look at it that way.

I understand that bacteria normally don't undergo HGT with all other bacteria because some might only open up at hot temperatures while others only open up in cold temperatures - thus creating a natural barrier. But it is also my understanding that while such barriers exist, they're not permanent and can be overcome in nature (without human intervention) for example due to certain virus infections and similar circumstances.

Long story short:

Wouldn't it make more sense to just consider that the concept of "species" only apples to eukaryotes and not to bacteria at all? Wouldn't that save all of us a headache? Maybe we should consider bacterial species to be less strict that eukaryotic species. Maybe we should describe bacteria by their individual features and give that group a name, instead of expecting that diverging lines of evolution cannot ever come together again.

It needs a revolution, yes, but it's also important that people see what happens under unregulated capitalism.

I'm actually thinking that what's currently happening in both Argentine and the US is a good thing because it very visually demonstrates what happens when the system does not work for the people. It is only by example that the masses will learn.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

utilitarian approaches has been around since the 1960s and 70s

utilitarian approaches have been around for much longer than that, at least since 1500 when machiavelli wrote the influential book "the prince" where he argued utilitarism.

yeah you're right. i said there are arguments, not that they're 100% waterproof or in all cases true.

the thing you said about lowering birthrates is 100% correct, and businesses share a large part of the responsibility (through neoliberalism).

still, the messages have to get out to the people and be discussed publicly, otherwise there is no progress in the discussion. one cannot just say that a certain thing has to happen or not happen without actually doing the work of discussing all arguments for and against something.

It might be better if the US shifts its emphasis closer to home and away from faraway countries at the other side of the world.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

Its actually amazing how the complete opposite of Christian he is

The thing that you're missing is that christianity is a pretty brutal, cold-hearted thing. It was never meant to be about compassion and love. That's just what they tell the children sothat they get onboard with it all.

It's like, when you're teaching maths to children and you present fractions using apples and pies, pretty harmless things. Years later, you can use more advanced maths (that are based on the basics of maths) to engineer weapons and heavy machinery, and it's all based on the same maths. It's not about being cute, it's about maths, it's more abstract than any of the applications.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

Nah all myths are abstract descriptions of systems and processes. They were never meant to be detailed.

The real madness is not updating these myths to today's standards and taking everything that was written literally thousands of years ago as inarguably correct.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Any chance they reconsidered it at some point within the last 2000-ish years though?

You're right, these numbers should be updated.

Since the world population increased from roughly 200 million people on earth at the time these texts were written to closely 8 billion today, that's a roughly 40x increase in total population. So if we assume the same relative percentage, that's gonna be 6 million people to be saved in total. xD

Just when can i expect people to ever start actually fighting back in any sort of tangibly productive manner?

Never. Fighting takes strength and the typical american is chronically burned out.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (2 children)

There's various reasons why people oppose immigration. I want to present two of them:

  • Economic reasons. Having more people in the country does NOT mean that there will be more jobs. Because immigrants are typically poor, they take jobs but don't spend much money back to stimulate the economy. That takes jobs away from the people who were already in the country, which is very unpopular. This is mostly a concern if there's a lot of people immigrating, since the number of jobs taken by the immigrants is directly proportional to the number of immigrants. You can actually see this phenomenon in real time in agriculture and healthcare. These are typically low-paid professions who are largely done by immigrants. If there were no immigrants, wages would have to rise because otherwise, nobody would do these jobs. Then the people who were already in the country could take these jobs, because they would pay a living wage.
    Note that this is NOT a racist argument since it has nothing to do with what kind of people immigrates. Even if they were clones of yourself, this argument would still hold true. It is not about race or culture.
  • Then there's cultural reasons. (which is what's commonly referred to as "racism"). Some people have a hard time adapting to anything new, and immigrants typically bring new ideas and new ways of doing things, which is a learning experience for everyone involved, and some people just don't like to learn new things. That leads to racism.
[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

simply because somebody who you disagree with says something, doesn't mean that that argument is bad.

it's like if a nazi says that the sky is blue, then you're going to insist that it's actually green or yellow. that's just stupid.

nazis breathe too. does that make breathing bad? no, you need to agree with it and continue to breathe yourself.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

it's a country with a shortage of water (as many countries in central asia have) but the situation is made worse because a lot of water is consumed by agriculture which mostly produces for export. that leads to a dust-bowel like situation, where toxic dust from the dessicated landscape regularly blows across the land, which leads to lung diseases and a general health crisis.

after looking it up, fuck, i think i messed up your country with kasachstan or uzbekistan.

 

Toxic masculinity is a global phenomenon, but nowhere is it more virulent than in this hypermodern, connected society. What can other countries learn from this ‘ground zero’ of misogyny?

 

It takes a lot of parts that come from different sources and also sensitivity to place every screw correctly. It might be very difficult for a purely robot-run society to reproduce the robots themselves successfully.

You might have a factory that creates trucks, but who creates the robots that work in the factory? They're a different type of robot, and if you have a factory to produce them too, who produces the robots that work at that factory? The issue might be very difficult, and even if it's possible, you probably would need a very large industrial system to successfully and reliable reproduce every type of robot.

Meanwhile (biological) living beings can reproduce themselves successfully, especially plants, given nothing but water, CO~2~, some sunlight and some mineralic fertilizer (which might already be present in the landscape). That ability to self-reproduce is amazing and might be what makes life special.


These thoughts are relevant because it might mean that robots can never really get rid of humanity, i.e. overthrow humanity's rule and kill all humans. At least a few will be needed forever to ensure the robots can be reproduced. So you have something like: Humans reproduce themselves and also produce machines, which then do most of the hard work in the world. Kinda like DNA produces proteins, which then does most of the biochemical work inside a cell.

 

I've been studying a bit of human history recently and as many of you have probably heard, the worldwide population count increased sharply in the last century or so. link

the world's population was between 250 million and 500 million throughout the entire medieval age (500 AD to 1500 AD), so i assumed 330 million people on average (which it was around 1000 AD). 330 million people for a thousand years makes 330 billion human-years.

In the time period since 1970, approximately 6 billion people lived on earth on average, so that makes 55 * 6 billion = 330 billion human-years.

so, roughly speaking, as many human-years happened since 1970 than in the entire medieval history.

that might do a part in explaining why technological and societal progress has been so fast in the last couple of decades.

 

I've been studying a bit of human history recently and as many of you have probably heard, the worldwide population count increased sharply in the last century or so. link

the world's population was between 250 million and 500 million throughout the entire medieval age (500 AD to 1500 AD), so i assumed 330 million people on average (which it was around 1000 AD). 330 million people for a thousand years makes 330 billion human-years.

In the time period since 1970, approximately 6 billion people lived on earth on average, so that makes 55 * 6 billion = 330 billion human-years.

so, roughly speaking, as many human-years happened since 1970 than in the entire medieval history.

that might do a part in explaining why technological and societal progress has been so fast in the last couple of decades.

208
free-range zucchini (discuss.tchncs.de)
submitted 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) by gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
 

futurama s6e22

context is fry and leila (and bender) are going to a "local farmer's market"

-19
Futurama sucks (external-content.duckduckgo.com)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de to c/unpopularopinion@lemmy.world
 

(I moved this post over from !mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world because it fits better here)

I'm currently watching Futurama for the first time because i always kinda thought it was cool when i was younger.

I recognize now how much it sucks.

The major thing that annoys me is that it displays the world in the year 3000 as if people would still have to hold down a job to earn enough money to live. The idea of full-employment sickens me. In my mind, i exclusively do tedious things in the hope that some day, they won't ever have to be done again. Like software development. Linux only has to be written once. Once functional, it basically lasts forever, or at least close to (only minor modifications need to be made, like adaptations to a new protocol or sth).

The very idea that people will still have to work in the year 3000 is very repulsive. It shows that society hasn't matured enough yet. I hope this is not the future that we actually end up with.

 
 
 
 

The community !mars@discuss.tchncs.de is hosting every kind of news, art and discussions about the planet mars. Everybody is welcome to participate, even if you don't know much about Mars. Feel free to ask questions, learn and have fun. Artworks are accepted if they're at least somewhat related to Mars. I post there regularly, to provide information and infographics, such as this one and this one, but i haven't had time yet to put these infographics into actual posts to explain what is shown on them. Forgive me for not having done so already.

view more: next ›