“digestible” and “nutritious” aren’t social constructs, so no. If your body can transform it chemically in a way that produces energy, it’s food. Otherwise it’s not. The same things are food regardless of your culture.

I’m really trying to make this one make sense, but it’s just not happening. Can you rephrase?

Everyone is talking about dominant and recessive genes, so I just want to clarify a couple things.

The way your body directly uses genes is as a blueprint to construct proteins. Your cells are always producing proteins from the genes in all your chromosomes. It has complex ways of regulating how much of each it produces, but your body doesn’t care what chromosome it’s coming from. Once an embryo is fertilized, there’s really no distinction between “mom” chromosomes or “dad” chromosomes, as far as the embryo and its protein machinery are concerned.

“Dominant” and “recessive” characterization is about how those proteins affect your body at the macro scale, not whether your body actually uses the gene and produces its proteins – it always does that. For example, brown hair is a dominant trait, and blonde is recessive. But this is because producing any amount of brown pigment will make your hair brown, regardless of what other pigments you’re making, simply because it’s darker. Literally the same as combining blonde and brown paint. It has nothing to do with whether the genes are actually being expressed – the brown hair gene doesn’t stop the blonde hair gene from making its pigments.

Perhaps “always-on display” is clearer? Keeps it from turning off when idle

Sure, but now you’re talking about running a physical simulation of neurons. Real neurons aren’t just electrical circuits. Not only do they evolve rapidly over time, they’re powerfully influenced by their chemical environment, which is controlled by your body’s other systems, and so on. These aren’t just minor factors, they’re central parts of how your brain works.

Yes, in principle, we can (and have, to some extent) run physical simulations of neurons down to the molecular resolution necessary to accomplish this. But the computational power required to do that is massively, like billions of times, more expensive than the “neural networks” we have today, which are really just us anthropomorphizing a bunch of matrix multiplication.

It’s simply not feasible to do this at a scale large enough to be useful, even with all the computation on Earth.

“uncommon” is an overstatement, you can get them pretty much anywhere that has pots and pans. It’s uncommon in that most people don’t bother owning one, not that they’re hard to get

In addition to what others said, the way you perceive light intensity is not linear. Between your eye adjusting to changing light levels and just the way your brains visual centers work, it’s closer to logarithmic. Indoor lighting at night probably feels like, what, 10% of the brightness of daylight? In reality it’s less than 1%, sometimes closer to 0.1%.

It’s still lemmy, but the mander.xyz instance is exactly this for science

Uh… Ask, I guess?

Your premise is wrong in like… A bunch of ways. We sure as shit do not live in a post-scarcity society lol

Because allowing them would be functionally the same as requiring them. Especially when there’s already a “primary” no-PED league.

I don’t really know what “original use” would mean – most emojis aren’t really made with some specific usage in mind, they’re just pictograms. The use is to be able to show a skull when you wanna

I’ve blocked multiple hundreds of communities, so if there is it’s high enough to not matter much

+1, in the US Whatsapp is the thing you download when you’re traveling abroad, and has no other presence at all

https://www.reddit.com/settings/data-request

14 years, 51k comment karma. It definitely feels very strange to leave it all behind.

I used to have an occasional habit of scrolling back through my own comments. It took me a long time to understand why. I don’t really participate in real-identity social media since I stopped using Facebook like a decade ago. So as an avid commenter for so long, my Reddit history is pretty much the most thorough and incisive chronicle of my own thoughts and evolution as a person. Almost a memoir. Seeing the types of stuff I was into, the way I thought and wrote, my opinions on the world, and how they changed over such a long period of time is really valuable to me.

Fortunately you can file a GDPR request and get a copy of the whole thing for yourself.

So, let’s put aside for a moment the rather shocking number of people casually advocating for murder in this thread.

I want to talk instead about how everyone here is just talking for granted the notion that removing the billionaires, Republican politicians, or whatever “they” you care to think of, would be a solution, or even a positive step, for modern social ills.

There’s a big undercurrent in almost any political discussion online, this implication that every one of the world’s problems actually has a super simple solution, that The Powerful could just snap their fingers and make it happen if they wanted to, and it’s only because of their greed etc that we have any problems that all. Obviously we live in a time of huge inequity and we’d be a lot better off if we found a good way to improve it.

But many (most?) of our biggest problems are inherent to the challenge of keeping 8 billion people alive and happy in a hostile universe, and in fact nobody has ever had a perfect solution. Throwing the entire planet into chaos by causally throwing away human beings’ rights and leaving an enormous portion of the world’s capital in uncertain hands, ready to be seized by some other set of psychopathic opportunists who happen to be in a position to do so, certainly ain’t it.