Me seeing this post for the 4,000th time.

Imo, don’t think about it too hard. I think it makes more sense to eat creatures based on a mix of survivorship curve and whether they are intelligent enough to need to be confined.

If you’re building infrastructure more to contain animals rather than keep other ones out, imo that’s the pivot point.

Idealized survivorship curves:

Type 1 and 2 are easy no’s. Type 3 is generally fine as long as its not like an adult turtle or octopus. Type 3 organisms are probably going to get eaten a lot and early in nature while its rare for the adults to get eaten.

I guess it depends on if people think roadkill is vegan; the dead wasp is part of the life cycle of the wasp/fig symbiosis so its going to die well before humans intervene.

Imo the argument could be made that by clearing land for vegetables there’s a large reduction in habitable natural environments. This results in things dying that normally wouldn’t. Especially true when you consider pesticides.

So is the problem the dead bug in the fig or the dead bug outside, say, an apple?

Idk isn’t that like saying all animal pollinated plants are not vegan?

Those aren’t LLMs.

What company does she work for so I can stay clear of that impending hallucinatory clusterfuck?

I have yet to see a field where LLMs are a net positive. At best scammers can dupe people easier and faster than ever but between writing, programming, etc the avg productivity gain is typically negligible at best to achieve work of similar quality with or without LLMs.

As they should

When you build a backdoor into your “encrypted messenger” its just a surveillance app

Man who hates a group of people vs group of people.

We should skip to the final evolution of this show where its Man who hates a group of people vs that group of people but all of them have guns.

I think setting to “rat detected” would be better.

Women tend to also process visuals differently. I do think I’ve seen data that show men’s eyes tend to be more sensitive to movement while women tend to have better color recognition on average. Movement is often also detectable in the periphery.

So when women look at dark areas they may see more things there in color, this may create a sort of feedback loop for night time visual behavior in addition to obvious sociological concerns.

The way to test for a visual feedback loop would probably be to evaluate night time driving (or other safer conditions) differences to see if women tend to look more at low light areas.

Alternately you could put men and women out in the woods and see if their behavior aligns.

This would be iterative engineering design.

It is weaponized autism (positive). Weaponized autism (negative) is like charlie kirk shit.

I do love the idea of educating scammy christians while they’re doing scammy shit.

I do love weaponized autism.

And the shop drawings for all the parts.

…

So you’re saying pandas aren’t pandas?

Similar to how a red panda isn’t a panda or wild rice isn’t rice or a sichuan pepper isn’t a pepper… yeah there’s a lot of these.