I have no particular idea whether there's a business case for humanoid robots or not. I would love to have the argument set out well. Perhaps you'd indulge my curiosity.
That there can be differing viewpoints on this matter is demonstrative that sex as well as gender is a social construct: the categorization and distinguishing characteristics of sex are normative. It's deeply ironic that the people complaining about "gender ideology" are in fact its purveyors.
> Even worse, there are programmers who have only had a high-school education and just seem to ''be good at it''. These scenarios and how they really do play out in real life have detailed at length.
This is classist at best and personally offensive.
Neat. I visited Valdez, Alaska lately and a friend was pointing out the tugs there. They seemed somewhat larger than other tugs I've seen. A data sheet says they have about 4x the horsepower of Heidi Brusco, coming from a pair of CAT C280-16 engines. I'm not clever enough to figure out how those are started. Cool boats are cool
I think I'd argue for a sui generis classification, which does partake somewhat of the whistleblower, but it seems like calling Napoleon a general. He was certainly that, at times. Apologies for the nit-picking in any case.
I do tend to think I live a bit more in the present because of aphantasia. However, I also do have an experiential memory. It's not great, and largely not visual, and to the degree there are any visual elements they're pretty useless, like burnt fragments of a Polaroid. I think you're kinda having a hard time imagining this condition.
This seems like a bizarre statement, or at the very least your thesis does not seem supported by your example. There is no particular reason to think that Roman civilization should be the same after the passage of 500 years since the supposed founding of Rome. Ascribing that in any significant sense to Hellenic influence seems ill-founded; there was a massive difference in fighting style, and hence military virtues, in societies where military virtues were all-important. Also, as far as I know (which is admittedly not a great deal), early Roman combat and armament was more similar to the hoplite armies than later periods. Perhaps you can allay my ignorance here.
"Slave" cannot mean unpaid coerced laborer, especially since the society in question predated currency. In point of fact, there isn't a single set of conditions that uniquely define slavery, and historical labor relations were different to the point where using the term "slave" broadly is useless, especially across large differences in culture and time. I don't think the question of whether the Egyptians used slave labor is meaningful.
This is like prevaricating about whether the Earth is flat. If your standards allow you to set aside direct observations then you are not being scientific, and if you don't like "skeptic" as a label for that then I don't mind getting creative.
His comment was accurate, yours was misleading, seemingly deliberately. AGW is not in scientific dispute; the skeptics are merely unscientific -- politically motivated, if you will.
There are easier "facts" to disprove AGW that don't rely on innumeracy. I mean you don't really care, you just want to have a "gotcha" and not think past that, but AGW was considered disproved for a few decades and you could get some "stumpers" that aren't quite as silly as playing number games.
The oceans can absorb a practically infinite amount of CO2, so there's no way for it to build up in the atmosphere in the long run. Also, the atmosphere is already saturated with CO2 to the point where adding more will have no effect. Also, water vapor's absorption spectrum overlaps that of CO2 so there is no way for CO2 to have any additional effect. All of these facts were known more than a century ago, and consequently AGW was considered disproved.
"Skeptics" should not read past this point, because it turns out all of those things are misleading. The oceans don't mix fast enough to prevent CO2 buildup, and the action of CO2 is felt not in the lower atmosphere but at the radiative top-of-atmosphere, the point where outgoing infrared radiation is more likely to escape to space than strike another molecule. Adding CO2 makes the CO2-dense region greater in extent, thus the outgoing heat takes longer to leave Earth, thus raising the total atmosphere temperature and causing a nasty feedback mechanism with H2O. Because this changes which elevation energy gets radiated at, we can directly measure it. Checkmate skeptics.
To tie this back in to the main point, Callendar was one of the prime movers in rehabilitating the AGW theory (one of his papers amusingly refers to the theory's "checkered past"), but it took until Keeling's work in the late 1950s to conclusively demonstrate the year-over-year increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.