My suspicion is that it’s abiogenesis, but it’s only a suspicion that I can’t have any certainty of

to be perfectly honest, Ive not had sunny d since I was in like, kindergarten, so I dont really recall what its like much beyond that its orange flavored.

I dont drink alcohol myself, but isnt there some kind of drink, like the kind they mix up at bars, not sure the term for those kinds, that is just orange juice mixed with vodka? I must imagine this is intended to be similar but premade.

Id say yes to that statement, but for reasons that dont have to do with AI as I dont really view AI training as piracy.

Would this even be necessary for automated ordering anyway? Given that every company under the sun wants you to use some app of theirs these days, including fast food companies, Im kinda surprised they dont just get rid of the speaker/microphone system, and just put a sign with a qr code in front of the drive through telling you to download and use their app to put in a drive through order

When my cats are going after bugs, I usually try to catch the bug first and take it outside. Unless I catch them messing with a wasp, in which case I try to trap and swat it with something heavy so that they don’t get themselves stung

Ah, sounds like someone going for the herostratus approach to fame

its a thing certain AI image generators can do

Admittedly not, no. I was making the assumption, possibly a naive one, that a computer should be capable of understanding the physics behind bullet trajectories well enough to shoot accurately even if the target is mobile.

I didn’t really think human operated, I was imagining something pretty much exactly like phalanx, but with a much smaller caliber and turret size owing to the small size of drones. Like a phalanx type software controller mounted to a small turret with a small caliber machinegun or automatic shotgun type weapon.

If you can target them with a laser though, why would a gun be much different? I know there’s dramatically more travel time, but bullets are still extremely fast, and even if one shot misses, something like a machinegun with a computerized control system seems like it ought to hit the thing before too long? Maybe the risk of missed shots causing harm might be too high for populated areas?

Is it just me, or does that discussion of the various ways to counter drones, kinda miss the obvious of just shooting them with a conventional gun?

Japan was nuked at a time when the realities around nuclear weapons (namely, the hostile nation having them too, or an ally of theirs) were different. The strategy around them is dramatically different now from then.

The point of building nukes isn’t really to launch a nuke at someone, it’s to make others decide that attacking you is too risky. Missile defense isn’t perfect, so even if it probably would stop them, there’s still a risk one gets through, that someone would have to take into consideration before launching an attack. It’s even more a threat against Isreal, since they have less time to intercept, and even one missile getting through would destroy a comparatively larger fraction of the country, being that it’s fairly small.

I mean, if you were the leader of a country that was under active invasion by a enemy with numerical and firepower superiority, would you not do the same? Given the circumstances, he’d arguably be failing his people if he did not pursue whatever avenue to get more aid that he can

I mean, having a hostage generally implies your intent is to hold that person captive in exchange for a demand being fulfilled, after which point you at least claim that you will release them. Presumably, Israel doesnt intend or claim that it will release those it has imprisoned even if it gets what it wants, so calling them hostages wouldnt really be accurate. One could call the people held by Hamas prisoners too I suppose, since that just implies them to be held against their will, but as they are explicitly being held in order to be used as a bargaining chip, calling them hostages adds more information about the situation than just calling them prisoners too would.

Youre wrong on all counts there, but most importantly to the actual topic of discussion, a negotiated settlement in which the aggressor is just given some of the territory they are attempting to conquer (which is exactly what a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia as the war has gone thus far would have been, because what else could Ukraine have possibly offered to convince Russia that it was worth it to give up their attack?) is not a wish for peace, its a wish for appeasement. It sounds like peace at first glance, sure, but by rewarding aggressive action, it gives every incentive for the aggressor to simply attack again later, in the hope of gaining more concessions. If this kind of policy led to peace, there never would have been a second world war. I do not like war the way you seem to think, but I do not want it tomorrow either. Ensuring that there is as little incentive as possible for those with the means to start them to do so, requires that those that start wars are not allowed to gain by doing so, and Russia has indisputably started this one, therefore to ensure peace, it must lose.

It would be great if all peace took was for everyone involved to sit down and talk, but as you say, the world is not like that.

Is that really the best response you can think of?

-“Give me your home.”

“Wtf, no!”

-“Well then I’ll kill you for it then”

Some random observer: “I wish they’d negotiated and just given the guy half of their home, then we’d not be in this situation…”

The aliens would have to be stupid to list a planet as solved for tens of millions of years after killing off the dominant life forms, because, well, a new one will just evolve in short order, exactly as has happened on earth, and they ought to know this.