The problem is that the places where this technology would be useful also happen to be the places with little to no humidity. You can’t pull water out of the air if there isn’t any.

The places where this would be useful are places with high humidity, but then water sources aren’t usually an issue. You’d have to have a region where it’s very humid, but doesn’t have access to drinking water. I don’t imagine those are particularly common. Such a region would probably benefit more from water treatment than pulling it out of the air.

You guys tried this once. It didn’t work.

I thought about this before, and mostly agree. My mom knows nothing about computers and could probably use Ubuntu if I stick it on a machine and gave it to her. The thing preventing me from doing it is that when things go wrong in Linux, it often requires extensive terminal usage to fix. And my mother can often find new and creative ways to break a computer. If something went wrong with it, I would have to fix it. There is literally no one else she knows who would even know where to start. At least if she’s on windows, she can find someone to help her.

Sometimes you want people to leave you alone on the bus, but don’t actually want to piss yourself.

Evidently playing the game isn’t a fun experience either, Aaron.

So, uh, not to sound out of the loop here, but what exactly is Sega getting here? They spent close to a billion dollars for…the Angry Birds IP?

Either:

1. Hire more staff to do more development/QA in a shorter timespan
2. Delay release schedule to not be annual releases
3. Reduce game scope to something the team can accomplish

Gamefreak cannot keep its historically small team size while trying to make large, open world titles that release annually. Tears of the Kingdom tool over 5 years to develop, and that was working with pre-existing assets. Gamefreak’s model is not sustainable.

On Artemis, yes. On kbin.social, no. Was kinda wondering why no one else was talking about it.

Is there a way that this fight can end with them both losing?

True. Just like free speech only matters when a far-right news pundit is banned on social media.

Ever notice how with the far right, the second amendment is the only one that matters? Any attempt to restrict gun access in any way is immediately challenged as unconstitutional, no compromise. But the first amendment never gets that benefit. We’ll ban books and raid newspapers just fine.

Mod’s gone, post fantasy content.

Taking a picture instantly after would probably create a different hash value. The thing about hashing is that even if one bit is different between source images, the resulting hashes would look entirely different.

I suppose I could conceive of a proprietary hash algorithm that would allow for fuzzy matching of iris photos, but as you said, eyes taken years apart in different conditions wouldn’t match the original hash. Or falsely match similar looking eyes. It’s not like this system allows them to get high resolution perfectly lit iris photos, after all.

The whole thing sounds dubious, and I suspect AI is mentioned solely to secure investor funding, much like how several years back everything mentioned Blockchain.

Maybe he was visited by 3 ghosts?

Several years ago for April Fools Day, Reddit launched /r/place, which created a canvas where users could place individual pixels every few minutes. Communities would get together to carve out their own little corner of the canvas for a piece of art, and overall the whole thing was pretty well received.

Last year for April Fools Day, they did it again. Overall, once again pretty well received.

Now, since Reddit has pissed everyone off, they’re doing it again again, likely in a desperate move to try and generate some positive community interactions. /r/place has always been pretty popular when they’ve done it before, so this is probably a ‘push in case of emergency’ attempt to placate users. Predictably, everyone’s still mad so they’ve littered the whole canvas with ‘fuck spez’ posts.

There needs to be a distinction between “I did my science badly” and “I knowingly published false information”. Wakefield’s paper linking vaccines and autism faked its data to imply a causal relationship between the two for the purposes of financial gain. You should absolutely be able to sue that guy if his paper damaged you in any way. Fuck 'em.

On the other hand, if you publish a study in earnest, but that study is full of mistakes and comes to an incorrect conclusion, you should not be able to be sued. If the study is bad, it would be easy enough to publish a response pointing out flaws with the original study. This is especially true since so many papers are published with the caveat of “this requires future study to confirm”.

In order to sue, you should be required to show some sort of malicious action behind the bad science, such as faked data.

This would be a dangerous precedent. If you disagree with scientific findings, you just conduct your own research to disprove the original study. If companies can sue researchers for publishing claims that damage them, it’ll just result in researchers withholding studies in fear a multibillion dollar corporation coming after them. Scientists need to be able to publish their research without fear of retribution.

The only exception I would accept is if someone published knowingly false research, a la Andrew Wakefield.

Oh look, it’s the fugitive slave act again.

You can be as selfish as you want when it comes to dating. You don’t have to do anyone any favors. You can reject people over the most petty of reasons. That’s all fine. The person who has to live with it is you, after all.

There are only two people in a relationship, and neither of them should be required to settle for the other. Even if your reasons are bigoted and stupid, no one can make you date someone.

In every thread I find you in, you just have the worst take.