Also is there anything I can do about the heat without running the AC? I try to leave the windows open, but they’re all on one side and don’t seem to allow for much airflow that way.
Open only two windows that are as far apart as possible. Get a large fan and point it towards one of the windows (i.e. so it blows air out) at about 2 meters distance. Leave it turned on during the night to create a cold draft that goes through your apartment.
Scenarios in gambling are rarely “purely random”. I.e. the likelyhood of winning in poker depends on what you already got dealt and what other cards got dealt and so on. What does “purely random” even mean? Like a lottery with equal chance of winning for all participants? Yea that’s gambling but just one kind of gambling.
Keep in mind that software engineering as a field is like, incredibly new, compared to a lot of other fields. Computers have not been around for that long, historically speaking.
It’s honestly to be expected that some of the first established languages did not turn out to be the best language that could be. We’re still figuring out how programming languages should be.
In 50 years, there will probably be another series of programming languages. They might even be optimised for LLM usage rather than for human directly, who knows. This stuff is all so new.
Considering coal is pure C, I can’t really imagine an alternate fuel that would change the math substantially
Yea probably within an order of magnitude or so - then again, elephants are probably within an order of magnitude of size of humans. I don’t see why elephants couldn’t eventually evolve to an intelligent civilisation, given enough time. I’d say that’s still pretty large.
But yea I mean the blue whale and the largest dinosaurs are probably about the limit of how large life can get, at least with Earth conditions.
But maybe you wouldn’t need as much fire cause bigger animals tend to hold heat better?
I thought the same thing. Then again, fire is not only needed for heat, but also for cooking food and creating new materials (metallurgy essentially). But surely a large creature could just make fires the same size as humans do if they needed to do those things? But perhaps it’d be impractical to cook food at a tiny fire hehe
Smaller I suppose, but larger? Why not? Wouldn’t you just have a really large fire?
Not kinda, exactly like it - it is just another example of it :)
I’ve never seen such a small flame, I think they can’t exist. Why? I don’t know.
Your intuition is correct and it’s quite simple really. A small fire cools down faster than it can keep/generate its own heat.
Surface area of the fire (which correlates with how quickly it cools) grows with the square of the size of the fire. Meanwhile volume of the fire (which correlates to how much heat it generates, how much fuel it is burning) grows with the cube.
At small sizes, the surface area can win out against the volume. However, because it grows with the cube, the volume eventually wins as the fire gets bigger. So a fire can only get so small.
There’s a group of people who have a hard time seeing the perspective of newbies and unfortunately that group overlap heavily with hardcore nerds. For whatever reason, hardcore nerds are generally bad at UX and generally bad at moderation. It’s sad.
Hopefully this will change as the hardcore nerds become a smaller portion of the user base and more regular people start using Linux.
“This 👆 💯 🤯”
Fair - but humans are definitely not the only animals that do.
Evolution did not code us to avoid wood chips. There’s no “wood chip aversion” gene. It coded us to seek out potato chips.
Again, I just think this is completely wrong. Evolution definitely does not only code us to go towards things we want, it also codes us to avoid harmful things. Evolution optimizes on all fronts at once.
We risk mischaracterizing the nature of evolutionary forces by assigning to it a level of forethought it does not have.
Evolution is a concept so obviously it doesn’t have forethought, but it doesn’t need that forethought to still evolve in a given direction. Natural selection drives evolution to whatever is preferable - if that includes an aversion to incest, then natural selection will select for that trait, given enough time.
So the whole point I am making is that aversion towards incest is not rooted in primary drives but rather in the socio-primate drives.
What evidence or arguments do you have for this? Aside from what you’ve presented already, as that has not been convincing. My explanation seems consistent and simpler and occams razor would prefer it.
We don’t eat wood chips and don’t like the way they taste, not because they are bad for us, but rather because we would rather eat potato chips.
I’m sorry but I find this premise completely ridiculous - obviously we don’t like how they taste because they are bad for us. Evolution isn’t only about preference, it’s also about avoiding stuff, like poison or rotten food or woodchips or whatever. I don’t think we can come to an agreement on such a premise.
It’s the same reason that we have laws against incest. Had laws against homosexuality.
I don’t think this is right. We have laws against incest, because we were programmed by evolution to think incest is bad. The causal chain is:
Homosexuality is not like that at all, if I understand correctly (which I may not, tbf). Homosexuality may in fact be a evolutionary trait that is selected for in a certain sense, or it may just be a side-effect of other evolutionary efforts. For instance, having a homosexual uncle could be beneficial to you, as he would spend less time taking care of his own kids (obviously won’t have any) and more time taking care of you. The uncle’s genes would have no incentive to do this and evolution would not pressure the uncle to become homosexual, but your common ancestor (your grandparents on one side) would benefit as your genes would be helped along by your uncle, and so evolution could have caused homosexuality to occur ever so often, to produce one of these “helpful uncles”.
Humans may not have consciously known that incest was bad, but evolution made us think so before we were even humans. All animals avoid incest, not just humans. We only created those laws and customs because evolution already made us believe that incest is bad. It’s pre-programmed in us, so to speak.
While surely there is some genetic component at play there it appears to be primarily motivated by the primate social adaptation system.
This seems like a strange argument, because “the primate social adaptation system” is also ultimately governed by evolution. Obviously a primate group with a social tendency towards incest would have worse survival rates than a primate group with a social aversion to incest, and that social fabric definitely is tied to evolution (unless you mean to imply that our social fabric did not arise from evolution, but I don’t think that’s what you’re saying).
Also, I don’t see how this can have anything in particular to do with primates and their social constructs as incest is avoided by all animals, as far as I am aware. It is not a purely human or primate thing, incest is bad for all animals and so they have all evolved via evolution to avoid it. I’d say the Westermarck effect is just the result of that evolution - obviously humans can’t directly read genetic code, so the mind assumes that whoever you grew up with must be your close relatives, and that’s good enough of a signal in 99% of cases, so that’s what evolution went with.
You can’t really definitively prove a theory like that I think. I’m no biologist so I’m not an expert by any means, but we can’t go back in time to see why evolution did what it did. We can only guess from what we have right now.
That said, such an “ew” response to incest surely is not just coincidence. It must have arose for a reason, just like all of our emotions evolved for a reason. For example, we also experience disgust when smelling or tasting rotten milk, because drinking rotten stuff is bad for survival too, so evolution made us have that response, because it would lower the chance of us drinking spoiled milk. There’s nothing “inherently disgusting” about incest or spoiled milk. We only find those things disgusting because they are bad, evolutionarily speaking.
And btw this isn’t restricted to humans obviously, all animals avoid having offspring with their close family, so this is a very deep-rooted behavior.
First, it was ew, then we figured out that there were also rational reasons against it.
Well, actually, it’s the other way around. Evolutionary speaking, there was a disavantage to inbreeding, so the “ew” evolved because of that. We think inbreeding is wrong because evolution taught us that it lowers the chance of survival for our offspring.
How much did it cost to get all the parts?