chefkd

would these comments by the esteemed Chiefs kicker considered a majority or the vocal 3.5 percent? https://apnews.com/article/kansas-city-chiefs-harrison-butke...

A lot of the world had hospitality rules and treated outsiders kindly. Lots of people were allowed to come and go as they pleased they actually provide interesting reads. Borders as we understand them today were invented in the 18/1900s. Mass slavery spanning multiple continents and racism on that magnitude hasn't happened since and hopefully won't happen again (except maybe Rome & Egypt but that wasn't trans continental)

Is this just huma brains or does it apply to something like beavers?

this is so maddeningly confusing to my brain that's used to you get what you put in

can you explain like I'm 5-10 why is the fund running out if every generation pays? are people in the workforce right now not paying into it or has there been a significant change in demographics between 1983 and now? wouldn't an entire generation need to stop paying for this to happen or is that ismplifying it

i used it through work so idk how the landlord side of things works

isn't it like AirBnB but for offices? isn't that good? like obviously there are complaints about AirBnB and stuff but it let your average person list their spaces

can CERN create dark matter in particle accelerators? how do people go about reasoning about it if it can't be created on earth

imo his bets were really cool wework is the famous one and idk it would have been cool to see commercial real estate replaced with locally owned spaces with remote work becoming a norm but idk i can see how that might be preference

this is such a dumb question but can arm chips even run AI models? it seems like AI on the edge is still 10-15 years away with everyone trying to build a moat

if you don't mind me asking why? won't everyone just get the money they put in from their salaries? in my head it's like a way to save pre-tax am I simplifying it too much

could you say more about what makes it a ponzi scheme? in my country there's traditional retirement account you contribute to from your salary whether you work at a private / public org and you get that when you reach 65 is that bad idk much about life but especially clueless about these things

Scandinavian is the usual example but like the UK for instance lived there for a bit everyone got dental / health through the NHS that would be the equivalent of medicare right? it didn't seem to be as political

For someone who doesn't know anything about SS how did the Europeans figure it out? Is it because they have smaller populations?

question for the initiated: why do space agencies divide their resources and attention between different projects? Wouldn't it make sense to focus first on making the moon and it's resources accessible kind of like airplanes then systematically expand to Mars, asteroid belt, and so on instead of spreading out too thin without conquering the closest

Any papers or books (or thoughts) on why humans developed IC engines before solar powered engines? At first glance solar power seems more accessible than digging for petroleum / natural resources + the sun held an important place in various early religions as well

ahhh makes sense thank you for catching that Iran keeps popping up all over HN past few days haha

still kind of crazy to think Iran and it's entire oil reserves that power idk how many households produce the same amount of revenue as 175k people

If you don't mind me asking do you know if they intentionally removed support for containers? The closest cousin FreeBSD seems a lot more friendly in terms of support

Plus a lot of devs use mac is it not a large enough addressable market for apple to care about the servers

Out of curiosity why cant it run macOS?

underrated comment :) bold of you to assume they don't have them already only 6 countries have a higher GDP than apple lol

if anyone from Apple is in these threads please sign me up for the beta although i think the first round pretty much knocked me & my family out

That's what is confusing a little bit I wonder if people said that about horses when they were replaced by cars isn't the one thing that's constant in this world change? A whole ecosystem that relied on horses being the main mode of transportation died

Where I'm from they said the phone was the devil it's a totally valid and human reaction to change. Change is almost always violent

even if resources were highly limited it seems intuitive that the evolution algorithm would prioritize acquiring knowledge for efficient resource gathering over killing long term wouldn't it?

Let's say cave person a figured out how to dig a well cave person b not so much. cave person b kills cave person a to get the well and uses it for x years then dies because they didn't acquire the knowledge to dig another one. so cave person c will be like "protec well digger hooman". same for foraging let's say cave person a killed cave person b who was extremely good at remembering where trees are in a given area sure cave person a got a meal for today but is gonna die out unless they develop the skills cave person a had

sorry I'm a homeless dropout maybe I'm missing something super obvious I'm still not seeing the how killing leads to an optimum solution. Maybe a local maxima for sure but not the most optimal solution in the search space and as civilized as humans have become killing still persists I've seen some brutal stuff by some insanely rich folk (at least to me) that had absolutely nothing to do with resources so maybe that's coloring my viewpoint but idk even for inter species stuff some species have been hunted to extinction which is like a dairy farmer killing everything instead of planning for multiple generations it doesn't make any sense

Assuming a high dimensional multi-variate search space I guess that leads to the question what the role of killing is in calculating fitness is right?

In my head the more humans / beings have known about their world the better the have survived so it makes sense intelligence would be a fitness indicator that speeds up the search algorithm. But there's no intuitive answer to why killing as many people as possible would be a fitness indicator like population wasn't a factor until recently so it's not like resource scarcity was the issue

Haha valid I could tell you stories but trauma comparison is not a healthy thing they tell me I don't even speak to mine but idk the pain of giving birth should get some credit?

I feel like when I was growing up this statement would have been accepted as a near tautology perhaps a cultural thing? or maybe a testament to the trauma-centric times we live in?

I think about this a lot does that explain intra species killings? cave person A see sabertooth cave person A dead cave person B also see sabertooth cave person B dead cave person c gotta kill sabertooth before cave person c dead. cave person eat sabertooth like sabertooth eat cave person A & B I understand but not cave person A kill cave person B cause caveperson different / new its not like humans eat humans haha unless you're a wendigo ofc

> "mammal mothers eating their young are relatively rare and usually occur under extreme stress or adverse conditions"

perhaps i meant to say just mammals? would be cool if neuroscience advanced enough to figure out what makes mammals specifically different but alas like Moses won't live long enough to see that day

A mother's love is unconditional like 99% of the time regardless of the species and humans are more or less the same across culture, time and space 99% of the time :(

does anyone ever think about a less vicious world? like I know evolution / survival of the fittest all that is a thing but did it have to be like this? Could we have evolved without killing?

hmm idk a part of me doesn't believe the program went away just rebranded and renamed itself esp. with things like Executive Order 13587 & the recent NSS but that could be because I come from a place that has shown me the worst of humanity maybe with enough time in the free world I'll learn to be Mr. Optimist :)

but the morality/legality of something like that is cool to think about as a thought exercise :- if they're doing anything beyond their legal parameters or beyond their remit, they wouldn't broadcast it or expose themselves by using it to arrest someone even in a hypothetical scenario where the data points to a person being kidnapped from an apartment, driven across state lines, and murdered which in my head seems worse than the collection but idk the laws feel not mallable enough for the age we live in

But that's what's confusing to me I come from a country where a dictator might kill a few thousand just on a whim and shut off the internet so it's confusing why the NSA which in my head is still governed by democratic principles and is not at the whim of a single psychopath can collect data on everyone but it can't be used in court?

Like hypothetically if they had social graphs and cell phone records showing a US citizen was kidnapped and murdered they can't act on it or pass it to the local police? Doesn't that seem illogical?

are there laws preventing the FBI from using NSA tools which in my head seem more advanced and all compassing? why even rely on wiretaps at this point

question for a book I'm writing: how easy would planes be to mess up in such a way no issues appear until plane takes off?

I'm not from the US so I could be misunderstanding the situation but I think free speech in this context means the ability to say anything (good or bad) against groups of people without moderation. Twitter is more lenient towards specific rhetoric same with all the social sites and their affiliations