Added to idea they recognise very simple geometry

The fact they communicated the idea to at least 11 Wales. Then openly demonstrating this fact to humans.

Is way more sci fi plot like. Sounds very like a star trek tng plot idea. Alien sludge creatures trying to prove to another race. That they are more then lighting oil to be killed and sold in barrels.

Or

Hey those killer Wales. They are only giving you fish. So you trust them close to your boats again.

They plan to leap into the small ones and capsize you. Then they will present us with monkey hats.

Yeah. I guessed that. But I doubt it is registered as a trade mark. So Google can still cause issues.

Although it comes down to if the use can be confused. That is not normally decided by technical conpidence.

Is not naming it the same as googles new AI a bit risky.

Thanks.

Also thanks for pointing out I mixed genes and traits. Was a video I saw so me missing it makes perfect sense.

Genuine question. How many genes were different in the original dir wolf?

Also elsewhere said 20 genes were changed. But I’ve no reason to consider that source better then yours.

Because they only qremember 3 points about the show.

Dire wolves where in it,

And the 2 on Khaleesi.

All amounts to the same thing.

Your just a guy eh is in a position to choose 1 or 5. And did not. So from that point. Yes you chose to allow 4 people to die. The death of those people is on your hands when you chose to do nothing.

You seem desperate not to make the choice but the responsibility for that lack of choice still lies with you.

Just as you were in a position to choose trump or Harris. So trump is as much your fault for failing to vote a viable alternative. As if you had chosen to vote him. Just because do not like either option dose not forgive you the effect of not choosing.

You really seem to be failing to understand. And simple typos are easy to read around. I’m visually impaired so have little patience for that excuse.

As you said its a thought experiment. As you say you only have two options. Rejecting responsibility is the same as leaving the lever in the kill 5 position.

Pull or don’t pull. If you pull 1 person dies. If you don’t 5 die. There is no don’t kill.

Yes the person tieing them to the track murdered them. But just like not voting you don’t get to rewind time amd select better candidates. As the guy in the signal box. Your duty iss to direct the train. Just as your duty is to vote. Not wanting people to have been tied to the track is obviose but not an answer. Unless you are the one willing to invent a time machine. Your duty is still to direct the train.

Not voting leaves you with trump. Because you live in a fptp nation where 3rd parties just reduce the opposing vote.

Just like not pulling the lever means 5 folks died. You still had the task to direct the train. Refusing to pull the lever still leave you responsible for 5 rather then one dying.

Refusing to take responsibility dose not forgive you for failing to select the lesser evil. You are still directly responsible for choosing the greater evil by failing to pull the lever.

Rejecting responsibility and blaming others is not an option provided. Because the thought experiment recognises you live in a system where you have to make choices based on facts not your hopes and wishes. You live in a world where if you don’t have the option to stop the train. Or prevent the arsehole tying people to the tracks. You still have responsibilities. I refuse to play still has an effect on the world you live in. Like it or not.

Bollocks.

It is a thought experiment. Where you do not get to dobt murder someone.

That is the whole fucking point.

Just like not voting dosent stop evil running the nation.

You are the one misinterpreting. By some how inventing the dont murder somone option.

Just because you dont like it. Dos not mean you get to invent your own interpretations.

Amd its not misinterpreted. The whole point of using the trolly problem is as an example as it was designed. Thought experiments are there to help you interpret real actions by simplifying them. Not to be ignored as pointless.

You are still the one making the choice.

Hence why the trolly problem is equivalent to a political vote. Not voting has the same effect as not making a choice between one or 5.

If you are there before they get tied to the track you do more. But that is not the situation you are in on election day.

On election day its to late to change candidates. Just as its to late to try and untie the victims. If you do not have correct of the breaks or the ability to stop the trolly on time.

Your only option is to choose or not to choose the lesser of 2 evils.

Failing to choose is no less evil then choosing the worst.

Sorta like the trolly problem.

You can flip the lever to kill 5 or 1. But if you choose not to and also don’t fucking bother to hit the breaks. Your still responsible for killing 5 instead of 1.

If you are not willing to actually stop the evil fai.ing to selects make you the bigger evil.

All true. But the world also watched a huge amount of voters rejects dems over gaza. While trump had no better plans on gaxa.

Much like Ukraine his only argument is “i am better and every one else was stupid”

The argument often heard. “Voting the lesser of 2 evils is still voting evil”.

So yes these folks very much voted the greater of 2 evils by refusing to vote the lesser option. And much of the rest of the world is rightfully sorta pissed at the evil they allowed in.

Yeah thanks for the effort. You would be stunned at how many web sites make no effort.

Many modern web sites often fail miserably, especially scripted ones. But mostly because companies just don’t care. As you say it is hard work. So when companies outsource that hard work is rarely if ever asked for up front. And the cost to modify existing site is hugew…

But remember if we are talking software. Again all the pro measures are based on 0 or 100% able. So again leave all disabled depending on solutions that slow down workload.

All the laws on the West only require reasonable accomadations. And being less productive is never considered reasonable. Or in anyway a hope for a successful career.

So with so much software moving to Web apps. Those AA standards rarely help beyond making the page usable. If your career depends on performance as almost all do. Most disabled are not able to efficiently use them.

Honestly best approach is to find some small projects you feel need help. Introduce yourself to the development team and offer time and suggestions. Eventually one will say yes.

But as a visually impaired developer I’ll give you a heads up. Most pro non foss ui is freaking awfull for accessibility. The choices made over the last 20 year are just bad. OS is far from perfect. But I find the interfaces generally work way better with enlarged text then anything using modern UI ideals.

So please if you get involved. Remember accessibility is more complex the let voice assist work. Most blind folks have some vision. And rellying on the Systems accessibility options is not enough for us to be able to use software in a competitive way.

OS software using the UIs designers seem to dislike. Is generally more customisable for font sizes and colour options accross different parts of the system. In ways able folks would just never consider. This allows us to actually layout software so we only need magnifiers or text readers for things we individually rarely need to read. But can increase the stuff we do in ways that allow us to work at competitive speeds.

Modern UI design is pecomming less accessible as the software becomes much more complex but developers of ui tools seem to see disability as a 0 or 100% slowing disabled users with some ability down to the point they are unemployable.

Please please try to avoid moving the OS stuff we can use that way as well.

I think you underestimate the hate.

For the organisations that want to deny the ideals suggested. Using software under such a licence would lose them support. So when developers select such a licence. The software itself gets recognised as such. Meaning any shitty organisation using it gets labeled unacceptable to their very user base.

So requiring the acceptance of these facts would have the same effect as anything else.

I think such a licence would need very careful wording. Wording that concentrates on the entity or organisation using rather then jurisdiction.

GPL claims free as in speech not beer. Whereas this would be removing that very concept. By suggesting use for some ideas is not allowed.

I can def see the advantage. Especially for people developing social software. But trying to form a licence like that. While not running fowl of existing GPL restrictions. Would take some seriose legal understanding. As making gpled current libraries incompatible. Could totally remove existing work to expand upon. Removing most developers desire to place the effort needed for the new software.

Would be interesting to watch the project form though. Unfortunately it would be very much like watching a dangerous stunt. Facinating as much for the risk of failure as that of hoping for success.

Actually when you discuse the 187th century. You are talking about pre revisionist science. IE before the definition of the scientific method.

And all the articles you shared were dated 1990s to late 2010s so no you were in no way talking about past views. But instead questioning hypothesis and reviews that has so far failed to form scientific theories on the subject.

Nearly all of these present hypotheses. As of this moment there is no clearly accepted theoretical model on how animals or human consciousness works. Just lots of open to debate hypotheses. Because for all we understand about neurons and processing of the mind. Much of the hypotheses are not truly testable. Just collections of experiments and ideas the scientific community is unable to form clear understanding and agreement on.

If you read this collection and say science believes animals feel no pain you are either misinformed or lieing. These are just a collection of opinions and experiments that fail to form clear conclusions as of yet. Because the simple fact is the mind is still very unknown for both humans and animals.