Isn’t growing universities a good thing? It seems to me that giving everyone access to a university education would be highly beneficial to the people.

I don’t think you’re talking about the same thing. There’s tuition cost in the sense of what students pay to get an education, and there’s what it costs the university to provide that education. You can cap the former. You can’t cap the latter.

If the port was easily accessible, I would. This problem only comes up when it isn’t.

The rice and bean barons will be competing for your attention.

If it hasn’t already, that post and its links need to be archived.

The article’s criticisms seem to all be addressing problems with generative AI, whereas the places that are getting these grants (my lab included) don’t do very much of that. It’s nearly all “old-school” machines learning for modeling and various optimization problems.

The one problem I would agree with is the widening wealth inequality. I don’t know what the solution to that would be. Ideally, it would involve getting rid of the current capitalist system rather than impeding technological progress. I don’t feel okay with someone telling me that I’m not allowed to automate tasks that I don’t like doing. In fact, I think everyone should have access to automations for things they need to do but don’t want to do. Let us focus on the arts, not on doing laundry.

You can only use it in a self-deprecating manner if you are yourself an educator, in which case, you’re still minimizing educators.

I needed to know if there was any validity to the claim. And if I’m doing the work anyway, I might as well share it.

Let’s say you save exactly one pill and it works on anyone. Also assume 100% pregnancy rate, so if you are paired with someone and neither have the pill, then it’s an automatic pregnancy. Our goal is to minimize number of pregnancies.

• “Max promiscuity”: Say we have a complete bipartite matching. if it’s given to a male, then no pregnancies have been prevented since every other male can impregnate every female. If it’s given to a female, then it reduces the number of pregnancies by 1 since none of the males can impregnate her.
• “Traditional”: Say we have a bijective matching (i.e. each male is paired with exactly one female, and vice versa). Then the pill can be given to anyone and it will always reduce the number of pregnancies by 1.
• “The Harem”: Say we have a matching where males have more than one pairing but females have at most one pairing each. In this case, giving the pill to the male with the largest number of pairings will reduce pregnancies by however many pairings they have.
• “Reverse Harem”: Same scenario as above but flip male and female. Giving the pill to any female will have the same effect of reducing pregnancies by 1. Giving it to a male will have no effect.
• “The Cliques”: The population is split into disjoint graphs, but each of these disjoint graphs are complete (bijective) bipartite graphs. In this case, if the pill is given to a male, then it will only have an effect if that male only has a single pairing, thereby reducing pregnancies by exactly 1. Otherwise, there will be no reduction in pregnancies. If given to a female, then it will always reduce pregnancies by exactly 1.

As far as I’m aware, the real world operates most like a mixture of “Traditional” and “Cliques”. At least, in places where birth control is an option. But in the real world, we have more than one pill.

If we have enough for either all males or all females, then the effect is the same regardless of who gets the pill. It will always lead to 100% pregnancy reduction.

Let’s say we have enough pills for all but one male, or all but one female.

• “Max promiscuity”: If the pill is given to the males, then we still have one male that can impregnate everyone, so there will be no reduction in pregnancies. If given to females, then you will end up with exactly one pregnancy.
• “Traditional”: As before, there’s no difference. Any decision will lead to reducing pregnancies to exactly 1.
• “The Harem”: giving to all the males except the one with the smallest number of pairings will reduce pregnancies to however many pairings that one male has (more than 1). If given to females, then it will reduce it to exactly 1.
• “Reverse Harem”: Giving it to the males will reduce pregnancies to exactly 1 since they’re only in 1 pairing. Giving it to females will also reduce it to exactly 1.
• “The Cliques”: if given to the males, then it will only make a difference if there exists a clique with exactly one male. It will reduce pregnancies by the largest number of females in a clique with a single male. If given to females, then it always reduces pregnancies to exactly 1.

So with the goal of minimizing pregnancies, it either makes no difference or is optimal to have the pill on women (unless you’re in a harem). This is highly reductive though. We have many other considerations when deciding who should get access to birth control.

And where do the laws of logic come from if not from the laws of physics and the way our brains perceive and process them?

Fahrenheit makes sense. The Tide website recommends washing at 16C minimum for regular detergent and 4C minimum for cold water detergent.

The brands I see that produce regular milk also make lactose free milk here, so I’m guessing they’re all processed the same way within the brand but just with added lactase at some point. Different brands probably do things differently. It’s usually 2-3 weeks for both regular milk and lactose free.

Is your lactose free milk prepared/packaged differently from your regular milk? The two keep for just as long here.

You’ll have to clarify what you mean by nutrients. I’m seeing some disagreements in the comments about whether things are nutritious or not because they’re using different definitions.

E.g. are you looking for high Calorie? Proteins and healthy fats? Large quantity of micronutrients? Large diversity of micronutrients? Or something else?

Ice cream should be sold by weight. Volume makes Calorie counting so much more complicated.

It’s not a criticism of people participating in a shitty system and have little say in the matter. It’s a criticism of a system that forces people to make shitty decisions.

Agreed. Early mornings and late nights are the times of day where you don’t have to worry about human interaction. These are introvert hours.

I got this too, and it basically immediately disappeared again. Our admins are doing a pretty good job of handling this kind of spam.

For one off events like 9/11, you can’t. There isn’t an accepted definition of “probability” for things like that. Either The question is completely nonsensical (Frequentist view) or the numbers are more or less all arbitrary (Bayesian view).

People will always need a place to live, yes. We also always need food, and general safety from harm. A home is no good if you lose any of the other two while living there. That can happen if, for example, the government or your neighbours decide that your kind is undesirable, or an arbitrary trade war forces businesses in your area into downsizing/bankruptcy and losing you the jobs that paid for your food, or the same happening to farms in the area. How big these risks are will depend a lot on where you are and who you are.