I believe other commenters exist. I don’t believe any of the comments any of us are making are useful. We are all here because commenting feels productive, even though it totally isn’t.
Yeah, a rare few philosophers did some precursor work to my field before it was its own field of study. Well enough. Would someone else have done it if they hadn’t? Perhaps a mathematician? Maybe. Maybe not. Probably. Philosophers doing something useful a century ago tells us little about whether philosophy continues to be a productive force in society. If the best thing you can say about the pursuit is that many years ago its members contributed to studies we now think of as separate disciplines, well, that’s not much.
No, I mean the laws that would still be making planets orbit the sun even if none of us were here to experience it, and indeed which had been doing for billions of years before we were here.
In other words, philosophy is a form of mental “self-stimulation.” It feels like you’re accomplishing something when actually you aren’t. That matches my views at any rate. Not that there’s anything wrong with a bit of self-stimulation. I’m here commenting after all. But philosophy is pretty unique in that they present their fun as some kind of noble pursuit.
Fundamental or emergent? What does that even mean?
Like nearly everything else in reality, you’d expect consciousness to be continuous, not integral. We know there are diminished states of consciousness by experience and observation. As such there wouldn’t be any lower limit on size of conscious objects, just smaller and smaller degrees of consciousness.
Yes, the laws of physics of course account for it. Everything that exists arises from physics.
300 positions is not going to significantly alter ebay’s profitability. It seems more likely to me that this is an occasion to drop a group of low performers all at once, or to make a certain job family redundant.
I think from the trajectory it’s pretty obvious who will be on top in five years. Whether the intercept is now, a month from now, or half a year away doesn’t matter all that much.
I don’t believe we all make our own luck nor do I discount the role of luck in my own success. However the model used in this study is very weak and does not supply much evidence, of you ask me.
Losses of ten percent on these nutrients do not seem like that big of a deal. Worst case we can enrich. Climate change is an enormous problem. But the nutrient levels in rice are an invisibly small speck on the face of that problem.
Don’t get me wrong. This is interesting, and the research is important. But this comment is for people like me who sometimes feel the news is about to make them hyperventilate. You can skip that for this one.
At least in US law, it is incumbent on the parties of a contract to understand it. If they sign without understanding, that’s on them. Terms of use are a contract between you and a website owner. If you don’t understand them, you can either not use the website, or accept the risk that you’re consenting to something you may not like. (Again, this is the current state in the U.S. I’m aware it’s different elsewhere.)
Food and water are pretty cheap these days in advanced countries. Very few people have trouble getting enough of them. Similarly, crime has been plummeting in most areas during the measured period. Lead in water is also a rare problem to have these days, Flint MI notwithstanding.
The main cost issues today are healthcare, education, and housing.
“We don’t have to pay attention to it because it’s important to our political enemies.” Picture a man standing in the middle of a track as a 100 car train barrels down the track toward him. “Watch out, a train is coming!” I yell. “You would say that. Democrats always do,” he says, and resolutely stands his ground.
Did the islands pay for these tunnels themselves? How? What is the payoff period (I.e how long until the economic value of the tunnels exceeds their costs?).
You have a constitutional right to privacy from the government. There is no such constitutional right (in the U.S.) that would prevent private surveillance, especially in cases where it is consensual.
I’m sorry but this is not really a substantive objection to what I said. Yes, people have a vague preference for privacy. I never disputed that. No, failing to respect that preference has not caused material, externally visible harm.
I don’t know that ad budgets are allocated perfectly rationally. My understanding is that it more often works like: “marketing department, here is XX million. Do your best with it.” Add to that the lack of perfect information about impact and penetration, and it’s hard to determine absolute value.
The only difference is that dumping toxic waste in rivers does actual, concrete harm. Targeted advertising? The worst I’ve heard about it is that it makes some people feel a little icky. I suppose that’s a concrete harm in a sense but it seems a much less serious one, at least to me.