2x Fn on MacBooks

the US the 50 states basically act like they are different countries instead of different states. There's a lot of back and forth on that - through the last 50+ years the US federal government has done a lot to unify and centralize control. Visible things like the highway and air traffic systems, civil rights, federal funding of education and other programs which means the states either comply with federal "guidance" or they lose that (significant) money while still paying the same taxes... making more informed decisions and realise that often the mom and pop store option is cheaper in the long run. Informed, long run decisions don't seem to be a common practice in the US, especially in rural areas. we had a store (the Jumbo) which used to not have discounts, but saw less people buying from them that they changed it so now they are offering discounts again. In order for that to happen the Jumbo needs competition. In rural US areas that doesn't usually exist. There are examples of rural Florida WalMarts charging over double for products in their rural stores as compared to their stores in the cities 50 miles away - where they have competition. So, rural people have a choice: drive 100 miles for 50% off their purchases, or save the travel expense and get it at the local store. Transparently showing their strategy: the bigger ticket items that would be worth the trip into the city to save the margin are much closer in pricing. retro gaming community GameStop died here not long ago. I never saw the appeal in the first place: high prices to buy, insultingly low prices to sell, and they didn't really support older consoles/platforms - focusing always on the newer ones.

That’s a very emphatic restatement of your initial claim. I can’t help but notice that, for all the fancy formatting, that wall of text doesn’t contain a single line which actually defines the difference between “learning” and “statistical optimization”. It just repeats the claim that they are different without supporting that claim in any way. Nothing in there, precludes the alternative hypothesis; that human learning is entirely (or almost entirely) an emergent property of “statistical optimization”. Without some definition of what the difference would be we can’t even theorize a test

I pretty much agree. The only thing I would add is that it's not our place to tell others to lose weight or to point out their weight; people already know they are overweight and that it's unhealthy. We shouldn't be policing other people's bodies. It's also possible to be overweight and have body positivity; being overweight doesn't equate to being unattractive.

This appears to just be a compilation of other leaks: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/no-the-16-billion-credentials-leak-is-not-a-new-data-breach/ Still not a bad idea to change passwords and make sure MFA is enabled.

I have a perfectly fine moral framework According to what? Not everyone has the same beliefs and negative attitude toward it Not everyone thinks female circumcision is bad either. for some it can even have a positive impact. Lol I don’t believe in absolutist terms. Do you absolutely believe that? While your continued failure to comprehend my initial comment is astonishing Your initial comment is indicative of somebody who hasn't thought seriously about their worldview but feels confident about critiquing others.

Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information. The law doesn't magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open. If discussion from the public is closed, then it's no longer social media. ban people who share false information Banning people doesn't stop falsehoods. It's a broken solution promoting a false assurance. Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed. Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify. If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want. Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren't claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.

hehehehe You know, it's hilarious that you say that. Nobody ever realizes that they're talking to a starving homeless person on the internet when they meet one, do they? Believe it or not, quite a few of us do have jobs. Not all of us are disabled or addicted. That is the problem with the society we live in. We're invisible until we talk to you.