stinos

Imo the explanation is also done better than in the article.

Also not quite what the article is about.

You apparently have never heard or seen the fairly widespread 'the only difference is your perception' line of vegan merchandise which uses dog meat it in the opposite way: it calls out the hypocrisy of all meat-but-not-dog people. Not of a select group of people eating dog meat.

Your suggestions should be fine for hardware failure but I'd be more concerned about software failure: what if a bug in your software makes it unresponsive and stuck in the state with the flow open? Maybe a watchdog or some other system running in parallel checking for a heartbeat or a max amount of time water can be flowing?

In any case, for me this also sort of defeats the purpose: I'd rather break free from Google and Apple, not just (stock) Android and iOS.

It's their breakfast. Chances are rather small they don't get any protein intake for the rest of the day.

I've bee trying these and alternatives in FF via LibRedirect for years. I keep on wondering if it's just me but I have to babysit the setup and cycle through instances every so often.

[1] https://greekcitytimes.com/2025/11/28/greece-water-red-alert...

Something like a Peugeot Partner (just to name something) + a trailer does all of that. With the added benefit that without the trailer attached it's a fairly normal size.

There's quite a lot of research in this direction (stimulation, be it ultrasound or otherwise) to tackle exactly things you mention. Not completely sure but probably stimulators to suppress epilepsy are the most common. It has been proven in animal research stimulating the right area induces visual stimuli - IIRC this has been tested and confirmed in humans as well, i.e., make people see again. And there's more going on.

In the end: everything in the brain is electrical current. Meaning that in theory stimulating the right bits can do pretty much everything.

The definition of habitat loss here is a bit poor because it doesn't mention the main contributor: farm land which over the past century got changed from something where insects could still survive to something which is more of a barren wasteland to them. And the thrid factor which goes hand in hand with that is pesticide use.

In many areas things have gone in the opposite direction.

Could be, but I'm pretty sure globally there are more areas where it is not going in that direction though. Or at least hasn't been going over the past century.

The Appalachian mountains were clear cut in the 1800s and now are back to forest. If this theory is correct, I would expect there to have been a massive increase in insect populations on the east coast.

Fir starters that's only one, quite localized example. Also the reasoning doesn't hold - ecosystems are complex systems. It's not because one specific area has been properly restored that insects would suddenly go there from surrounding areas, let alone that from the restored areas they then would suddenly have colonized neighboring areas (the entire east coast as you mention). Mainly because the speed at which they can colonize is limited and insects bound to forests don't necessarily all survive in other types of habitats.

That could indeed be one of the possibilities. But, again: no controls nor proof. Also, again, to be cystal clear because looking at your tone it seems I hit a nerve there: I never in any way said it's impossible those herbs in fact helped.

As far as we know it's rather: you got your life back and happened to take some herbs at the same time. Basic correlation. Could be causal but no controls nor proof whatsoever. Hardly controversial indeed.

Not verbatim in the sense that the words are different doesn't make it thinking. Also when we say 'humans think' that means a lot more than only 'new question generates correct answer' or 'smart autocompletion'. See a lot of other comments here for details.

But again: I laid out 2 possibilities explaining why the question might in fact not be new, nor the data, so I'm curious which of the 2 (or another) explains the situation you're talking about.

You're saying it's nothing "special" but we're not discussing whether it's special, but whether it can be considered thinking.

Apologies, with 'special' I did in fact mean 'thinking'

I still see 2 possibilities: you asked it something similar enough that it came up with a fairly standard answer which just happened to be correct, or you gave it enough info.

- for example you created a new line of MCUs called FrobnicatorV2, and asked is 'how do I connect a power supply X to FrobnicatorV2' and it gave an answer like 'connect red wire to VCC and black to GND'. That's not exactly special.

- or, you did desribe that component in some way. And you did do that using standard electronics lingo so essentially in terms of other existing components which it definitely did know (unless you invented something completely new not using any currently know physics). As such it's irrelevant that your particular new component wasn't known because you gave away the answer by describing it? E.g. you aksed it 'how do I connect a power supply X to an MCU with power pins Y and Z'. Again nothing special.

The point being made here is about the data LLMs have been trained with. Sure that contains questions&answers but obviously not all of it is in that form. Just like an encyclopedie contains answers without the questions. So imo specifying this as 'no-one asked this before' is irrelevant.

More interesting: did OP get a sensible answer to a question about data which definitely was not in the training set? (and indeed, how was this 'definitely' established'). Not that if the answer is 'yes' that'll prove 'thinking', as opposed to calling it e.g. advanced autocompletion, but it's a much better starting point.

Sure large herbivores were and still are part of many ecosystems.

But around where I live the majority of the grass for the grass-fed cows doesn't come from anything remotely resembling a rich ecosystem. The grass is literally 'grass': maybe one or 2 types of grass, similar amount of herbs, funghi. Hardly any insects except for flies attracted to manure. These used to be ecosystems with > 20 species of grassses and herbs per square meter.

And these are even relatively small farms; trying to upscale it beyond that to make it possible for millions of humans to eat meat multiple times a week, it won't get any better. If you're putting large amounts of cows in a much much smaller habitat then what they'd naturally use, then it's not the same ecosystem anymore.

Its perfectly possible for grass plus grazing animals to be carbon sink, and a provide a rich ecosystem.

tldr; yes, but only if you want to feed a couple of people from it.

Rather off-topic, but it's funny how this principle applies in the exact same way when it comes to traffic for instance. It is unfortunate it has to be like that, but not trusting any other traffic and assuming they can at any point do the thing you'd least expect them to do is just safer. Especially when e.g. cycling this saved my from injuries or worse more than just a couple of times. And that's even in a country with relatively high numbers of cyclists.

Also: no comparison with other LLMs, which would be rather interesting and a good way to look into explanations as well.

Just wondering: while this is less of an attack surface, it's still a surface?

Hehe, sorry for explaining the obvious to you then :D

That's essentially correct, but modern tech also makes it relatively easy (and in the end cheaper compared to non-LED) to

- make lights with a properly focused well directed beam instead of flooding the whole place; we have a new one close to our house and it sheds light only on the street itself to the point you can almost see a nice straight line where the light beam stops and beyond that line it's markedly darker than it used to be even though the light beam itself has a higher intensity

- make lights which emit in wavelengths which are less environmentally harmful for flora/fauna

- make each lantern remote controllable (on/off/dimming); main street lights here dim after 11pm and are truned off in all secondary streets

(there's a website dedcated to listing the best models for all of this but I cannot find it anymore)

The thing which is lacking here mostly is awareness and governments willing to implement this properly. We live in a rather small rural village which did implement all of this - too bad there's no research project assesing before and after but since it counters most of the negatives I assume it should turn out positive for the environment. Birds are definitely positively affected by it: execpt for owls I don't hear any singing in the middle of the night anymore. And in any case it feels pretty 'normal' to come home at night while it's properly dark.