Yeah. Copilot is comparable in many ways, but its failures tend to stand out. For example, it can't even export a table to Excel.

Funny, it sounds like this might be one of the few applications that might actually benefit from a blockchain!

The answer is simple: the media has lied to you. He is not the scumbag they depict him to be.

Um, except that the whole left/right thing is named after the United States.... maybe instead of redefining US politics to fit a European standard, we just shouldn't use a US-based metaphor to speak of European politics?

Lol, why is it that liberals think that black people and other minorities are somehow constitutively incapable of getting ID cards? That's just... racist. The reality is that the vast majority of us already have IDs. I'm Mexican and I've had an ID for longer than I could even drive. The only reason to avoid voter IDs is to allow or encourage fraud.

Harris is constant lies, fear-mongering, flip-flopping, catering to every kind of nonsense as long as it is liberal, and a complete and utter lack of understanding of basic economics. I'm sorry, but your hope is in vain.

Ummm... suuuuuuure...

I think you're confusing Ted with Kamala and Israel with Africa. Such bumbling inability to remember names forces me to conclude that your name must be Joe Biden.

I agree. I even benefitted from the ACP, but I think it was just another example of Bidenomics spoofing money to try to buy votes. After the program ended, AT&T voluntarily gave me a discount for almost the full amount. Sure, there might be one or two people who were able to get Internet because of it, but I would wager that the majority of users already had Internet, and the subsidy only encouraged additional spending. Is that bad? Well, it all depends on our goal. The Democrats tend to claim that their goal is to connect unconnected households. If that was the goal, I would wager that it was a failure. If the goal was to boost the economy by expanding government spending, then I guess the ACP did something.... Does that mean we should bring it back? Personally, I'd rather invest in programs that ACTUALLY help the poor instead of making it slightly cheaper for me to whing about the government on Slashdot.

lol, I'm guessing you're joking.

But just in case some people don't realize this is a joke, I will add that there are several reasons why it doesn't quite work like that. To name a few:

1. The idea of "more advanced" assumes a linearity to evolution that does not fit with natural selection (the "escalator fallacy" discussed by Mary Midgley)

2. While many genes perform multiple functions, these are not in any way planned, as though a gene becomes established because it does both A and B and therefore can replace two separate genes that each do only one task. Since genes operate by dictating the production of amino acids, in most cases their multiple operations are mere coincidence. Governed by natural selection, if such coincidences happen to be useful enough to promote the organism's survival over others, then the gene becomes established.

3. It is actually much simpler to suppose that excessively large genomes evolved by mere chance. In the first place, it is not as though so-called less-evolved organisms all have large genomes while advanced organisms have small ones. It is true that many apparently simple plants have huge genomes, but this does not mean that the line of evolution passes from large to small genomes. Rather, earlier versions of plants had simpler genomes which became much larger because strange copyerrors ended up producing some benefit. For example, a cell accidentally doubled a chromosome, but by pure chance this doubling did not lead to its death but ended up being read in such a way that it provided a benefit.

Importantly, what is especially facinating is that not all DNA really adds new information. For example, since we have two of every chromosome, much of our DNA is essentially just backup. I remember being in high school pondering how so much complexity about the human person could be encoded into DNA. I did some simple math, and discovered that human DNA is only about as much information as a clean installation of Windows XP! Clearly there must be more to what makes us human than just DNA, because we certainly seem at least a little more complex than Windows XP. Of course, epigenetics helps to explain the gap a bit. But at the same time, it's important to see that much of what we are is really a product of our individual development/environment, and is not strictly encoded into DNA.

Agreed. Adobe's behavior is still wrong, but it does make sense to change the logo.

Now we can have more videos like this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=...

You make some good points, but I really wish you'd research your historical claims. It's ironic that today we promote the idea that we require proof, and yet people often accept mere authority—and bad authorities at that—when it comes to historical claims. For example:

Galileo wasn't excommunicated. Excommunication is a very specific punishment that means that someone is not allowed to receive the Eucharist and is no longer part of the Church. Galileo was put on permanent house arrest and his books were banned. However, this was a relatively light punishment, since they didn't prevent him from continuing his work. In addition, while the Church was wrong to condemn Galileo, it's really pretty complicated to understand the full story around it. Galileo's combative attitude played a significant role. More importantly, Galileo's claims went against both established theory (including mathematical theory) and what seemed to be common sense experience. Galileo's eventual acceptance required a rethinking of what "empirical" evidence meant so that instruments like the telescope could be trusted more than one's own eyes.

While the Church was the source of science, this was primarily because the Church provided opportunities for education and scholarship that were otherwise lacking in medieval society. The Church typically did not declare on matters of science. The reason it crossed the line in the Galileo incident has a lot to do with paranoia over the Protestant Reformation. Also, I don't know of any medieval book of science that actually includes dragons. Dragons were a matter of superstition, but that doesn't mean that the educated people typically believed in them.

The real weakness of medieval biology was that it relied too heavily on Aristotle and Galen. Aristotle's biology was actually quite groundbreaking and in many ways it points prophetically toward modern biology, but it was still very limited especially because Aristotle had to rely on too much secondhand information. This is why he taught, for example, that hyenas could change their sex. This quirky falsehood made it into the popular mindset because Aristotle's biology lacked serious followup and correction until the modern era. Importantly, Aristotle's biology contributed pivotal things like the axiom "natura non facit saltum," which was taken up by Leibniz and Linnaeus. He also essentially began the science of empirical biology. However, as I said, the concept of empiricism had to change substantially at the end of the middle ages in order for modern science to develop.

Even in the early centuries of Christianity, the book of Genesis was commonly accepted to be symbolic in meaning. The modern fundamentalist mentality had not been invented yet. Augustine, for example, suggested that "six days" might not literally be six days. Interestingly, in Genesis light and darkness are created before the sun and the moon. This points to the sense in which it is not talking simply about physical creation but metaphysically: the very concept of light needed to be created before there could be an actual entity that produces this light. There's a lot more to be said about Genesis, but most importantly the story is intended to make clear that the sun, the moon, the stars, the earth, and other things are not gods. Other religions, most notably the Babylonians, saw these things as produced out of the gods and divine in themselves. The Hebrews recognized that the world is not divine and yet still profoundly good.

Anyway, your major points are well taken. You're right about how quickly the tide of scientific opinion can change. The problem with dark matter and dark energy is precisely that they are fillers. Yes, they are well-defined fillers, but fillers nonetheless.

You're right. Now, if these memecoins were at least liquid enough so you could trade them for a sufficient quantity of hell money, then at least you'd be ready for the afterlife! Still, I'm old fashioned even when it comes to graveyard economics. I prefer to get my hell fortune the tried-and-true Egyptian way. If you want to be the wealthiest man in Duat/Hades, you have to bury your servants and subordinates alive with you so they can continue to pamper you for all eternity! That's my plan, at least.

If they really want to go this route, then instead of telling people to HODL and implying that they will make a fortune, they should just tell them, "Think of it like you're buying a Beanie Baby.” Sure, they would get fewer buyers, but fewer people would lose all of their money as well. After all, it's possible for one or a few elite collectors to make money even off of Beanie Babies. But it's all the more obvious that most collectors will merely be buying them to have them, without any monetary return.