That’s not lazyness. Multiplication is always done before addition. No need for parenthesis for that.

I’ve heard people argue in both sides of “is 0 a natural number?”. But I’ve never before encountered the “there are no natural numbers” argument. It’s like flipping a coin and having it land sidewise.

Backdoors are features, not bugs though.

The one on the right looks bigger though, it’s just zoomed out.

So if you are that dude with the mining rights, you would sell them at the same price before and after discovering the gold right? Since the discovery of gold hasn’t changed its value.

Their app being so bad is the only reason third party apps were even a thing. The official reddit was just unusable on mobile.

It is the only social media that had a significant user base using third party apps.

The same is true for the search. You had to use their party (google) search engines to search for something on reddit.

Not even the desktop website is good. I don’t even remember the name of the extension, but that one extension that every power user had brought many simple features that reddit didn’t add after years of existing.

Their multiple redesigns were universally hated. The reason they haven’t shut down old reddit is because a non-insignificant amount of traffic uses that frontend, even though it is 2-3 redesigns old.

Basically anything that reddit did was shit. It only was popular because the core features worked and were free with very little ads. And it had a massive (and active) user base that posted content, so basically every google search contained a reddit link with a decent answer.

Let’s do one with raw material in the ground:

There is a mountain that is 99% made of solid gold, but none bothered to check. Some random dude has the mineral rights for that mountain.

Suddenly one day, that dude wanders in his mountain and makes a 1m deep hole and finds the gold. He has not yet extracted a single gram of gold.

So you say that mountain has no value?

Or has the analogy have to be lithium now?

I believe it was a joke where real maths refer to maths dealing with real numbers.

Lithium is literally named after stone. No one ever claimed it is rare.

When an X deposit is found, it means that a place has been found where an unusual concentration of a material in an easy/cheap-to-extract form has been found.

There are thousands of tons of gold in the ocean water. But no one would call the ocean a gold deposit. Because it would require a ton of effort/money to extract a tiny amount of gold from the ocean.

I can get to my house, and I can value it at 5 trillion €. That doesn’t make it worth 5 trillion €.

If an actual person/company that values things for a living, does an analysis on the value of my house, and it is valued by X€, then it is probably valued at X€. If someone says “pff just because they say so? I’ll buy your house for 5€”. Then a lot of people will come and say “5€? That’s a steal, if you’re gonna give it for such a low price, I’ll get it for 6€”, and it will probably go on until it reaches an amount very close to X€. If it ends up way below X€, the ones that did the analysis would probably want to buy it themselves, because they actually think they can make a lot of profit on that.

I don’t know why I have to explain this. This is very basic economics.

Except we are already focusing on AI data centers. By bringing up corn you’re just unfocusing. Which is the opposite of what you want.

Yes, both are bad, and we should get rid of both. But both things can be done at the same time. You don’t need to steal the focus from another issue to try to redirect it.

Instead of “why are we caring about data centers? Corn is worse!”. Try “while we are fighting data centers, we should also look at corn, they’re bad too”.

Again, those 2 are smaller than half the size of the random steel skyscraper I’m comparing it against. I could make a 1m tall sandcastle and claim sand is great at building castles. IDK if skyscraper has a formal definition, but I think you’re missing the point.

Something being cool does not make it objectively better. Of course, we don’t have to do everything the same way. Maybe the builders of the buildings had unique constraints that made wood better than steel in their case. Or maybe they did so for artistic reasons, which they deemed worth the cost or not using steel. Or maybe they just put an arbitrary constraint of themselves of “we must use wood because we want to”.

Tall buildings made out of wood existing does not mean that it is a good default choice for building skyscrapers.

Sure, you claim that there are actual skyscrapers planned/being developed. But I wonder what sacrifices, if any, they had to make.

Maybe we have been using steel all this time because nobody ever thought of wood. But I find that unlikely.

I searched for “tallest wooden building” there actually is a list in wikipedia of the tallest buildings.

The tallest of the list is not even a building, it’s a radio tower. At ~110m.

The closest city to me that has a skyscraper has a single skyscraper, and it is >150m tall.

I would not build a skyscraper out of wood.

Wood is cheaper than steel. Which apparently is the most important way to be better in. But I wouldn’t build a skyscraper out of it.

Saying that energy density is not important in energy storage technology is as stupid as saying that material strength is not important in building materials.

I already quoted you. I don’t need your permission to do it.

If you’re not gonna even try to defend your position you’re just spreading misinformation.

In only a few years, most batteries will be made without lithium anyway.

Citation needed.

I’ve considered this many times. But I just can’t see a fair way to do this.

You either compensate with money or with time. I would gladly pay 3x my commute monetary cost to just teleport there, so at least in my case time compensation would be much better. So how to do it?

Option 1: Clock in when leaving the house, but that is incredibly easy to cheat.

Option 2: Calculate once per employee the time it should take them to get there based on their transportation method. They can just claim to commute in a time-inefficient method (such as walking or cycling) when they go in car instead. What happens to people that don’t always use the same method?

Option 3: Reduce the work hours for everyone by the same amount. This is amazing, but you can do this without claiming it’s for commute compensation. If you only do this reduction when not WFH, then you are basically punishing those who WFH and would have a short commute time. The ones on the top would just WFH 99% of the time from very far away and get massive commute compensations otherwise. Even then, the times they go to the office would be massively beneficial.

For money, it’s basically the same.

I just don’t think it can be done fairly.

Where’s the research though?

Because they are the ones in power. Whatever they say is the “official” version. Therefore, the correct one.

If the media says something different from the government, that’s because the media is leftist propaganda.

Take into account how stupid the median person is, then realize half the people is stupider than that. It’s not hard to convince them to vote against their best interest, you just have to lie.

Corn ethanol being stupid doesn’t make AI less stupid.

There’s plenty of stupidity out there. That logic would make everything useless.

By that logic, no one outside the US would care about voting, since they already reached peak stupidity, so voting for a better president in Argentina will not get rid of trump.