I also found that extremely weird. I'm a scientist, or at least I got a STEM PhD before I quit, and I often think about how indeed correlation does not imply causation, and how a lot of science (or the media reporting thereof) seems to think the opposite. I wouldn't use it myself because it sounds a little cliched, but I would be pleased to hear someone utter the phrase. Although it may often be accompanied by some questionable beliefs (it's 2024, we all have them), it indicates that someone has given some kind of thought to something.
It is, in my opinion, still "electrons". More pedantically, the electron field is still the mechanism for nonzero current, regardless of its exotic state. This must be the case as there's no other stable charge-carrying field that's not strongly localised to the nucleii (in this material, or any solid material I can think of). The article does a lot of waffling without admitting this basic point.
Well you literally said that the article is 'less "secular humanist" and more "religious Conservative pearl-clutching,"'
Perhaps that's not strictly branding the author as a religious conservative, but I might go so far as to say that your comment is less "merely raising a point" and more "making baseless assumptions and accusations"
I will refrain from smugly assigning a star-based rating
I gave up on spam a few years ago. My gmail account which I got in the beta has 14000 unread emails in the inbox. I'm sure there are people out there with more. I used to delete/unsubscribe/report spam, but the amount just kept increasing, and I'm not the sort of person who can be bothered pruning his email inbox every day. If someone emails me something important, I usually still see it, or I search for it. If I'm unaware of it, well if it's really that important they'll call me. I've started to migrate to other addresses but I still use this monstrous account for a lot of things.
A lot of people are telling you to Deal With It. I would argue that people are way too hyped about these AI developments. It looks cool and it can generate something interesting, but can it really generate what you need? Can it make something good enough to work like an ad (or whatever) made by people who know what they're doing? Maybe sometimes, but usually the answer is No. Will it do that soon? Nobody knows for sure, but I think a lot of techies are too optimistic. What the AI does is an interpolation of existing image data. It doesn't know how to draw what you really want, and it can't reliably produce output that's usable (let alone "good") for highly specific purposes. And any real application of CG/videography is highly specific. It's easy to imagine all of that is the next step, but I think that's a lot harder than what the AI does at the moment.
Another fantastically ignorant pontification on crypto, right here on Hacker News. Whether you like crypto or not (or whether you know anything about it or not), little of what you said is relevant to the point of the article in question.
Largely meaningless numbers, because energy efficiency scales inversely (loosely speaking) with network size. You can do some nice tricks to improve efficiency, but the scaling will never be good, as these networks all use the same consensus algorithms. The only project I've seen with fundamentally superior scaling is Avalanche, but it's new technology and I'm not yet entirely convinced.
It's definitely a different game. Personally I love the changes and mostly agree with the devs. Food was for most characters a pointless mechanic once you had a basic level of game knowledge. However there are also some interesting forks which preserve some of the old mechanics.
The tournaments kick ass. Agree that challenges make for some fun gameplay. Playing in a tournament with a random team I found really increased my enjoyment of the game.
Yeah I've heard/seen that a lot. I know a few foreigners with great English, but they still make mistakes all the time. It must be one of the least consistent languages out there. But most languages probably have some interesting surprises at the "advanced" level. I learned French for a long time. It's hard at first because the spelling/pronunciation is weird for an English speaker. Then it gets much easier, because French is in fact a fairly consistent language with nice structure. However at the advanced level French has quite a few surprises. Strange inconsistencies preserved for historical or aesthetic reasons, opaque idioms, surprising new tenses, chains of relative clauses to make your head spin...