I'm not sure about the science of it since it's one of those things that's going to have fudged science on all sides of the issue. So you can't really go off the "facts" since you're just picking facts that already support your kneejerk reaction.

As an idea though? I don't really like them. Every time mankind invents something it seems to result in a great deal of short-term happiness at the cost of long term misery. It's been that way since the industrial revolution. I don't see why GMO's would be any different. They can claim they're safe but how can we know really? Companies are out to make money and if people feel a bit too stressed economically the government will try and kick the ball down the street for the next generation. Borrow from the future so the present won't revolt.

And like >>114 said, we haven't seen any long term studies. They haven't been around long enough, so claiming to know is a bit of a folly.


>>118
It depends on what sort of thing you're buying. If you're going for 100% organic, no pesticides, 100% fresh. Then yeah, it's going to cost tons. If you just pick up say, a bag of frozen broccoli it's usually pretty fair.

Unfortunately you don't know if it's GMO or not since requiring a label on GMO products is some sort of great profit killing evil. If they're so great, so safe, why do these companies shirk back at the thought?

You can also get your food cost really low if you're willing to eat tons of dry foods. Like rice/beans/oats.

GMOs aren't inherently bad because they're genetically modified (we've been selectively cultivating to induce changes over a longer-timespan for millennia), but rather because genetically modifying them opens up lots of downstream consequences:
* It allows crops to now be "patented." We're in the age of DRMd crops, and you can get sued for growing them without a license.
* Knocking our or inducing gene expression in crops can result in a situation where you're presenting the body with a novel compound (or combination) that it has not adapted to handle. This is less of a risk for minor adjustments (e.g. up-regulating or down-regulating expression), but for more radical changes where you're crossing species liens, it's a definite risk.
* Probably the most significant one: "roundup ready" crops just mean that the crops that you end up eating get doused with more pesticide than they used to. Also almost always they end up prioritizing hardiness over nutrition, so what you're eating is tasteless gloop anyway.

I want them to make a GM banana that tastes like banana candy.

>>1645
It's called Gros Michel banana.

>>1619
Life is hard enough for me as it is, more legal requirements making me pass tests every year would just make it worse. I prefer as little involvement from governing institutions as possible. We already have waaaaaaay too many laws on the books regarding automobiles, and everything else.

>>1624
I hate public transport and urban communities. Self driving cars sound like a good idea if they could be made to work.

I'm not sure how well that would work, I think we all know why drink driving is a bad idea but it does not stop people. If anything what stops people are traffic cops and speed cameras, not popular but it works or if nothing else if people do make break road rules they are more likely to get caught doing it and lose their license.

>>1627
I suspect people only know it's bad in abstract, and don't really see how specific actions could lead to specific consequences. But then, I really don't understand people; it seems inherently obvious to me that driving inebriated is asking for death.

If people can't be taught then maybe more/better enforcement is a better solution. Though in general I think that just incentivizes people to get better at breaking the rules.

>>1627
>I hate public transport and urban communities.
Do you really, or do you just hate the blacks? It's two issues, not one.

>>1612
>Even in these small studies they show issues and potential issues
You go back and forth between saying the positive effects can be dismissed because it's a small study, and the negative effects shouldn't be dismissed even though it's a small study.

>I already addressed alcohol
By hand-waving the issue, making baseless claims about it being less unhealthy, and appealing to cultural norms.

>even if it's simply culturally. I don't think anybody could deny that drug posters are terrible or that many of the most insane and annoying people are people that use them
This is your real problem with "drugs". Everything else is window dressing.

>>1613
I never denied them, I never said it would not work as an anti-depression. As I said, more research needs to be done to find out how serious these negative impacts are, how much could be attributed to it being a small study and then it needs to be compared to existing treatments.

If that's the way you see it but the point is I did address it. I keep saying as I said and that is annoying as it shows that you are not really reading what I actually write. But again. As I said, even if it is as bad as other substances, that does not mean that we should just open the flood gates and these other substances should then be legalised as well, that just adds more issues.
Alcohol has been with us for so long and is so engrained into our culture that the idea of banning it is simply unfeasible, we even have trouble banning cigarettes and there is no doubt about the health impacts they have.
I never said alcohol was healthy, there is an argument about whether it is more or less healthy but I never denied that it is unhealthy.
But, it is also a known evil.

That alone is a big issues but I have other issues that I already talked about as well.

tobacco societies > alcohol societies > psychedelic and stimulant societies > weed societies

had to be said

>>1626
Weed truly is awful.

>>1580
>And is there any way for that to account for idioms, metaphors, and references?
Yes, all of those are accounted for, as you can empirically verify if you play with these LLMs. Transformer models handle not only "closed-ended" antecedent inference (winograd-schema esque) but also "open-ended" inference. The extended 2-gram example was just a sample, in reality these models don't just look at frequencies. I don't think anyone knows exactly what the Q/K/V vectors they learn end up corresponding to (although you can try to make guesses by looking at activation patterns), but all we know is that successive layers keep pooling information

If you don't have access to a LLM, see the joke explanations in e.g. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2204.02311.pdf (page 39)

>Input: I tried 10,000 random restarts of my neural network, but I was
accused of overfitting. I guess no good seed goes unpunished.
>Model Output: This joke is a pun. A neural network is a computer
program that can learn from data. A "seed" is a number that is used to
initialize a random number generator. A "good seed" is a number that
produces a good random number generator. The phrase "no good deed goes
unpunished" means that if you do something good, you will be punished
for it.

>Input: I think I understand why me and my partner are such a good match.
I get excited when I smell food and become super alert when the
doorbell rings. My girlfriend Shelley becomes ecstatic when she sees a
person who she just saw 5 hours ago.

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>1581
>>1582
I'm not really following the jargon (and don't really care to look into it), but I can see that subtleties could be accounted for simply as additional variables.
But, far as I know, that still would not account for the correct answer not being among the possible choices.
And more importantly, it does not explain my lifetime of experience of people not even being in the right category when they assume my meaning. For instance:

(about searching for "the meaning of life")
me: "I think the whole question is a misframing, and that meaning is chosen instead of found."
them: "So you think the meaning of life is to make choices."

>>1583
That only means the people you're talking to are dumber than an LLM

Ah I see Kaiko has good company

They should look into supporting Bitcoin and especially Monero. Ont he technical-side, shouldn't be an issue. Instead, the blocker would most likely be instructing users how to obtain BTC/XMR and use it in a transaction. And more than ever, people need to understand what 'private' means in 'private key.' Putting that aside, there are other platforms, so whatever.

>>1569
Whether they're for-profit or not wouldn't change this decision, and non-profits are just as prone to this kind of behavior.

>>1566
It's only going to get worse as newer generations are incredibly uncomfortable when something is just allowed to be done without legal intervention. At this point I'm not going to distinguish between the law and the terms of use of companies, as large corporations have well more than enough power over everyday life to rival most governments at this point. At some point the legal status of the organization doesn't effect how much it impedes your freedom.

>>1576
>large corporations have well more than enough power over everyday life to rival most governments at this point
They're just branches of the government: corporatism.

>>1404
>those are piddling, meager efforts of an inferior people compared to what literally any other nation has acheived.

I'm going to stop now. I don't really see a point in continuing this if you are going to continue saying ridiculous things like that. Clearly what you are saying has no basis in reality.

>>1408
>I'm going to stop now. I don't really see a point in continuing this if you are going to continue saying ridiculous things like that. Clearly what you are saying has no basis in reality.
I was gonna drop the reveal and post a timestamp with the guy down the street's union jack from his backyard flying in the background, but he put up his fucking wiltshire flag this week, so that's ruined.

>>519
http://filteries.com/politics

That test its awful and superficial try filteries

>>1404
>> I would also remind you just where exactly it was that the industrial revelation was started, who exactly discovered gravity and who it was the coined the term dinosaur and laid the ground work for the theory of evolution and who had the tallest building in the world for a quite substantial period of time.
>those are piddling, meager efforts of an inferior people compared to what literally any other nation has achieved.
Of all it's achievements, most impressive of the British Empire is not that they managed to conquer a greater portion of the earth than any other people before or since, nor even that they managed to conquer the tongue of every person on the planet, but that they managed to colonize the mind and conquer the intellect and spirit of every other peoples on the planet. Never has a single group more wholly retained the attention and the spite of the entire world.

>>1462
>if it's just a group of people that decided that eating soup once a day is good for you or that eating soup once a day with like-minded people brings people together and is good to create lasting friendships
Sounds pretty casual. What if you add fanaticism?

>>1460
>philosophical debates are really just bickering over the definitions of words
The bickering over "consciousness" always seems like this. People always redefine the term so they can defend a viewpoint that no one really meant in the first place. The "compatibilists" are a prime example of this.

At it's core there are only 3 options for the question of free will:

* The universe is completely deterministic (á la superdeterminism) at which point you obviously have no free will at all, and the notion of science itself which depends on the notion of independence faces a radical paradigm shift (maybe independence only holds at the macroscopic level or something, who knows). That is to say, the future is "predetermined" but not predictable given the complexity. Either way this is the option that no one dares to accept.

* The universe has true randomness at the quantum level, and our decisions/thoughts at any point in time are purely a function of our sensory inputs and brain patterns which evolve over time (plus maybe some minor random noise). In this case the future is "locally" predetermined (depending on the amount of random noise), and in the long term is undetermined (given the randomness). But if there's no mechanism by which you can influence the randomness, then there's no "will" here either.

* There is some unknown physics by which we can influence events at a non-material level. This is seemingly what most people cling to when confronted with the question.

But either way philosophy contributes nothing here. If this _is_ a decidable question it is one that can only solved by experimentation to learn more about the nature of the universe and how our sensory inputs are converted into thoughts.

>>1463
It would not change anything, many non-religious movements are quite fanatic, for example communism, anarchism or fascism.

I think this is approaching the problem fundamentally backwards.

For context: first, if you were to simply declare that Soupism is a religion, on what grounds could that be refuted? We have no objectively true and correct English dictionary as penned by an almighty god himself. And we have no objective truth machine into which we can feed non-empirical questions and receive irrefutable results. And citing an authority would simply be pushing the problem off onto someone else. Webster's, for instance, also has no magic truth machine.

Second, how is anything determined? If you start with assumptions you can make logical inferences from those assumptions. e.g. "If we assume A and B, then we can deduce that C must also be true". But because that starts from assumptions, any conclusions derived this way are hypothetical. And I don't think you were asking for a hypothetical. If you had intended to start your question with: "If we assume that religion means _", then you wouldn't have needed to ask at all. Else, because the only way for outside information to get into your brain is through your senses, the only other means of determining anything is through observation. And starting from observation, the experience of whatever it is would have to come first, and then the term applied to it would simply be a reference to that experience. You couldn't, for instance, have the concept of soup before you had the experience of it (real or imagined).

Getting to the point: so to define what a term means from observation, you would have to designate a particular experience as the archetype of that thing, and the characteristics of that chosen archetype define what the term means. For instance, you're eating your bowl of wet food, you decide "this is soup", and then whatever else is or isn't soup is defined by whether it is sufficiently similar to The Soup. It could also be a cluster of archetypes, a group of things by which their collective or common features define the term. You could have subtypes of the thing ("tomato soups") or partial fits (cereal as a "demi-soup"), certain features might be weighed more heavily than others, and specific definitions may vary with individuals or with groups or with time.

So, rather than asking "is Soupi

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>1361
>Are you saying that the sun orbits around the earth then?
i would say thats the next best thing now that heliocentrism is out of the way.

>If you want to invoke the aether, then what would explain lorentz invariance?
honestly i had no idea what lorentz invariance was until i read about it a few minutes ago, from my understanding it means the laws of the universe dont change no matter where you are. if i do have this right then i think it would be you that has to explain how lorentz invariance exists without any underlying fabric on the universe. the ether easily explains it because everything is the ether and therefore everything is bound by its laws. without an ether, what is stopping something from not following the laws of physics or even leaving the universe altogether?

btw the random bullshit i was talking about was lorentz contraction, which to my knowledge was invented solely to account for the failure of the michelson morley experiment.

>If you can reliably reproduce this, then sure
i mean in principle how psychic communication and magnets work are the same. hypothetically if it did exist then it would work through the same medium magnets do, so its nonsensical to classify magnets in a different domain.

>I'm not sure what you're arguing against
what im trying to do is show that there is something non-material enveloping the whole universe that would be the foundation for all other types of non-material phenomenon.

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>1363
>now that heliocentrism is out of the way.
This is opening up a whole new can of worms – if you reject heliocentrism then the assumptions we're working under are so radically different that it's not going to be productive to continue this line of discussion. (You'd have to go back to epicycles to explain orbits, let alone the tangible evidence from telescopes)

>>1363
I think it'd be prudent to at least understand a bit more about SR (and GR) before dismissing ideas outright. And if you dismiss lorentz contraction then you're implicitly dismissing time dilation which we know is experimentally true given the correction factors needed for GPS.

>and one low frequency but having much more energy than the high frequency one
Please lookup the planck equation.

>>1364
>Please lookup the planck equation.
i think you misunderstood me, i know high frequency means more energy. i guess what im trying to say is you can have a high amplitude low frequency beam of light that doesnt produce the photoelectric effect, meanwhile a low amplitude high frequecy beam of light will produce it.

>if you reject heliocentrism then the assumptions we're working under are so radically different that it's not going to be productive to continue this line of discussion
it is much easier to just accept the results that the michelson morley experiment showed than to claim that distance contracts in order to explain why the motion of the earth cant be detected.

>I think it'd be prudent to at least understand a bit more about SR (and GR) before dismissing ideas outright
it would be

>>1366
>you can have a high amplitude low frequency beam of light that doesnt produce the photoelectric effect, meanwhile a low amplitude high frequecy beam of light will produce it.
Yes, what's wrong with that. There's a thresholding effect depending on frequency, and amplitude (square of which roughly corresponds to intensity) determines the current. Wave-particle "duality" is a pop-sci "meme" as it were, there is only the wavefunction and its evolution through time. Trying to say it behaves "like a classical particle" or "like a classical wave" is just as wrong as saying that sound is caused by something invisible like air but is caused by ripples like watter so sound exhibits "air-water" duality. Under the modern field theory interpretation I believes photons are nothing but what we call excitations of the EM field. And quantization is a result of an effect similar to how classical standing waves are constrained to multiples of the base harmonic.

>>1472
Tribal identification is inefficient in globalized industrial society. To that end, Europeans are attacked because their culture is too puristic and they aren't easily assimilated into a massive global population/workforce. It's simply and honestly in my opinion regular old greed. International mega-corporations do not have it in their long term or short term interest to maintain or tolerate a population that doesn't want to cooperate with it or become another segment of the squirming, slaving brown masses.

We live in the delusion that humans behave and form ideas, philosophy, and civilisation because it works well, but the reality is that no human social behavior can be known to have the most optimal results in the long run. Sometimes a system that works well for thousands of years suddenly runs up against a problem it wasn't developed to solve, and it disintegrates under the pressure of it's new environment. I believe that industrial society, or more importantly global economic society, was that obstacle for European civilization. It ended up pitted against groups, largely run by individuals from it's own culture and genetic background, that simply didn't care about loftier ideals like race, culture, religion, etc. and used their acquired economic power to blot out opposition. To that end, European societies are being destroyed simply because they are too costly to maintain. Europeans expect too much of their resources for themselves, and too much autonomy over their own land, and within recent history ( say 30,000 years ) they have been the most opposed to mixing or cooperating with groups outside their own, as is evidenced by their genetic situation. By the way you should read about that kind of thing, Europeans form such an insanely tight cluster on the global scale and are one of only two super-populations to have effectively zero modern mixing.

Although greed may be the wrong idea here. I can't see human society past a certain point as the result of individualistic human ideals, desires, and motivations, like for example "the Jews want to ( personally ) destroy the white race". I see things as a big system sort of deal, where

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>1473
>a population that doesn't want to cooperate with it or become another segment of the squirming, slaving brown masses
Isn't physical and low-skilled labour becoming increasingly obsolete?

>>1474
The context doesn't really matter, the refusal to integrate into a globalised system is a major threat to the control of the people who are consciously or unconsciously sending us in this direction. Even if they got rid of manual labor today it would be a major threat to have an entire chunk of civilisation that doesn't want to go your way. Their pursuit of a mono-civilisation that they control may even be some twisted form of self-defense. After all no individuals with power can stay on top forever, I think that no matter who they are or what their desires are, it would just make sense that if you had reached the top, with the power a major global corporation has, and you could visualise it's destruction, you'd want to destroy that threat or assimilate it into your own resources.

>>125

This board being like /pol/ isn't enough, and since the coomers on this chan are few and unactive, an real touhou fan raid and conquest would be happen and would be 100% effective.

Der problem is that we're in the middle of the end of the world so we're not sure of wasting time since the end of Satan's kingdom is near and in any moment the totality of real touhou fans would disappear due to what is told in Armageddon.

At least I hope we would join to the angels in the final war against the devil and the jews

>>27715
Additionally, sometimes I found statistics on cheating over a 12 month period

>Annual prevalence of infidelity was 2.3%.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0893-3200.21.2.320

>2–4% of spouses report having sex with a secondary partner in the preceding 12 months.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X16300227


Which is interesting as one of they studies I quoted(or tried to) gave an annual cheating rate of 10% and that same study gave lifetime rates of 28% for men and 15% for women.

I also found a study form China.

>In 2020, 26% of married Chinese (35% of married men and 23% of married women) reported ever having been sexually unfaithful to their current spouse.

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

Most of these studies seem to be before 2007 or so, it'd be interesting to see statistics post-2008 when the barriers to finding other promiscuous people became lower with the rise of various websites and mobile applications.

>>1542
>2–4% of spouses report having sex with a secondary partner in the preceding 12 months.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X16300227

Was from 2017.

>In 2020, 26% of married Chinese (35% of married men and 23% of married women) reported ever having been sexually unfaithful to their current spouse.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2057150X221108574

Was from 2020.

>Almost one-quarter of men (23.2%) and 19.2% of women indicated that they had “cheated” during their current relationship
>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-011-9771-z

Was from 2011.

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>1540
>so many studies are behind pay walls now, I can't even gleam anything form the abstract.
Use sci-hub for free access.

>>1526
If you interact with western 'anime fans' you'll just get angry. Actually if you interact with westerners in general at this point you'll just get angry.
Of course we are all westerners and western anime fans but you know what I mean.

But look at the bright side. If the west does start making 'anime' and it takes off then maybe they will leave real anime alone.

>>1526
>we often watch a copy of one of Mr. Miyazaki’s films for inspiration
I'm not even much of a fan of his works, outside of the actual animation, but they must have been blindfolded each time they watched something.

>>1528
They don't call it a blindfold, they call it a "lens".

>>1532
Of course they do.