swansont

You keep missing the mark. You might have provided evidence of intelligence, but that’s not evidence of purpose. That connection is only your conjecture. And, as promised, we’re done here.

! Moderator Note Which means don’t bring up the topic elsewhere. A post telling us that you’re going to post something soon is pointless.

I guess I wasn’t clear enough: the problem is “more than random chance reactions” I thought that would be obvious, since nobody argues that life isn’t complex, but that’s too much to expect, I guess, even though your agenda of insisting on it been a recurring issue across multiple threads. ANY suggestion that there’s “something more” requires evidence, or the thread gets sent to the trash can, since that’s not science.

Even less if you have to drive some distance to get it. (I saw a story recently about people driving an hour each way to save $2 on some artisanal bread. I hope they were buying a half-dozen loaves)

You can’t store all of those unique values if your discretization doesn’t allow it. The example shows 12 x values, but only 6 unique y values (though 9 are possible*, some data points have the same y value) It’s possible that there are 12 unique y values in the raw measurement, but only 6 are recorded. *100, 75, 50 25, 0, -25, -50, -75, -100

! Moderator Note You’ve presented no evidence of this, and if that’s your pitch, you can’t sneak it in (along with any attempt to advance your notions of cognition). Argument from incredulity is not evidence. If it’s not, then why bring it up? I’m sure the biological community will be shocked that cells have electrical, magnetic and chemical interactions, since we’ve only known about that for many, many decades. Being new to you carries no weight.

This does not rule out that the problem is you

Do you see a connection between people not liking ai and a publisher not declaring that a book is ai? Traditional printing is cheaper per book…if you print a certain number of books. There’s overhead to the process. Say it costs $10000 to print 1000 books. (that’s $10 a book, but there’s a setup cost, so the first book costs, say $5000, and then it’s $5 a book after that.) You need that money up front, and you need to sell 100 of them to break even, which takes some time. You could print more books and the cost per book drops, but you’re betting you sell them all. If they don’t sell, you lose money. Print-on-demand could cost $20, but you profit $20 from the very first copy.

Cameras might help catch the perp after the fact, but that doesn’t prevent the accident in the first place. Is there any credible evidence that red-light cams deterred infractions? We know it encouraged fraud from the companies contracted to run them The one previous systematic review of RLCs found that they were effective in reducing total casualty crashes but also found that evidence on the effectiveness of cameras on red light violations, total crashes, or specific types of casualty crashes was inconclusive. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8356316/

If print-on-demand costs less than $40, that’s how they profit.

I don’t think that works in higher population areas, where there’s going to be background noise no matter what and you don’t hear the stealth auto. The vision impaired hear the chirp of the “walk” signal and need to hear if there’s a car ignoring the red light.

NIST standard sushi chef for civilian applications. There might be a milspec sushi chef, but that would be classified. The SI unit is the benihana

Can’t watch out if you have a vision impairment. That’s the population being helped by noisemakers on (nearly) silent cars, since drivers have a tendency to hit pedestrians. ~100k injured a year in the US, according to https://www.banalaw.com/practices/pedestrian-accidents/

A weak laser isn’t going to slice up a bird, and a strong laser (even a weak one, really) is an eye hazard to anyone looking out the window

But human waste has bacteria and parasites that are specific to humans, so the concern is that there’s a higher chance of spreading disease. Cholera, for example. AFAICT it’s largely a matter of exposure to human waste, not other animals’

! Moderator Note If all you can do is repeat what you’ve posted, we’re done. You haven’t presented a way to test your idea in any quantifiable way, so it does not meet the criteria of speculations.

As opposed to what? You say this as if it’s not the inherent nature of choice. How do you vote for only part of a person?

That’s not at all obvious to me. In the US, the combined net worth of the twelve wealthiest people exceeds $2 trillion. Meanwhile we have homeless people. And people in other countries are worse off. What seems to be true is that being poor in the US still affords more comfort than being poor did in times before technology. You can be poor and still have e.g. access to indoor plumbing. It’s not necessarily synonymous with destitute. That’s not the same thing.

One problem with putting New Year’s day on the solstice is that it moves around - it falls on Dec 20, 21 or 22. A variable length of year might not be the best approach

Raising that possibility. Optimism. Sort of.

More money than brains. If you're an optimistic sort, you might say “at least he didn’t blow it on drugs” but that’s really pushing it.

You say yes, it’s new, but haven’t listed anything new. These effects are already known, so they don’t test your idea unless you quantify the deviations.

Is there any of this that isn’t already part of existing physics? And is it testable?

I didn’t rework your words; I quoted them without change. I did use my own in reply. Not really. An infographic with 24 fallacies listed - am I supposed to have used all of them? Do I pick one? Do you not know which one I allegedly used? Is this just distraction so you don’t have to address the issue (i.e. a red herring, not listed in that link)? Do you not understand how discussions work? Something else? Whether someone else is confused isn’t your call to make.

I didn’t add anything. I pointed out an implication, which suggests the statement is not true. You can retract it or defend it.