OK, I hope my question doesn't get misunderstood, I can see how that could happen.
Just a product of overthinking.

Idea is that we can live fairly easily even with some diseases/disorders which could be-life threatening. Many of these are hereditary.
Since modern medicine increases our survival capabilities, the "weaker" individuals can also survive and have offsprings that could potentially inherit these weaknesses, and as this continues it could perhaps leave nearly all people suffering from such conditions further into future.

Does that sound like a realistic scenario? (Assuming we don't destroy ourselves along with the environment first...)

Was it good?

My pick is Five Finger Death Punch and the obvious answer is Ivan Moody. The guy radiates that alpha-male wannabe energy and it definitely rings through all of the songs he has written and performed with this band. The guy is just a prick and a self-victimizing asshole.

I think he's the primary reason FFDP is mocked so badly.

This isn't about immediately filtered content, like the disgusting DuffMan George Floyd meme, or Holocaust denial. That's pretty well kept in check by mod tools. I'm also not talking about cogent or even pointed political discussion.

I'm not even talking about necessarily in this community directly, however in a lot of other spaces I've noticed a lot of accounts using divisive language and terms like "The ineffectual left" "single issue voters" "ignorant right wing morons". Lots of straw man arguments, lots of willful ignorance.

I'm not a centrist, I'm very very very far left however I know well enough not to patently dismiss the talking points of others, outside of course calls to genocide. I know what dog whistles sound like, and I'm hearing a lot of them lately.

Most egregiously I'm seeing very long form post replies that read very much like what is generated from LLMs.

So I guess my question is, how're we all fairing with what might be the largest Turing test ever?

Stuff could be anything, digital or physical, but the idea is of discussing and doing it as a hobby without any pressure or push to make it a business or side-gig. Nothing against that, simply that communities/groups with that atmosphere are easy enough to find as-is.

I have always called a light top with a full zipper to be a jacket, however the people I'm surrounded by insist on calling it a sweatshirt. I'm prepared to be wrong, just wondering if I'm the only one.

The internet has made a lot of people armchair experts happy to offer their perspective with a degree of certainty, without doing the work to identify gaps in their knowledge. Often the mark of genuine expertise is knowing the limitations of your knowledge.

This isn't a social media thing exclusively of course, I've met it in the real world too.

When I worked as a repair technician, members of the public would ask me for my diagnosis of faults and then debate them with me.

I've dedicated the second half of my life to understanding people and how they work, in this field it's even worse because everyone has opinions on that topic!

And yet my friend who has a physics PhD doesn't endure people explaining why his theories about battery tech are incorrect because of an article they read or an anecdote from someone's past.

So I'm curious, do some fields experience this more than others?

If you have a field of expertise do you find people love to debate you without taking into account the gulf of awareness, skills and knowledge?

I want to see if I can get a spark of the "old internet" back by making a starting page for myself with all kinds of cool websites. But not sure where to start because Google obviously will not work for this.

So... what are some of your favourite websites?

I would also be curious to hear how you eventually found it again!

One to start: Conquest for paradise by vangelis. Just randomly woke up one morning with the song plus title in my head

They're sort of a hybrid between a strip mall and a business park. I see them in some areas. Two stories always, and a very warehousy design.

For years now, I do not buy/create assemble a new computer, because I am totally overwhelmed by the options available to me.

If we agree there is 'The Paradox of Choice', it seems to make sense to have a much more limited choice between CPU models from a consumer point of view. For example, have for each year an entry, business and a pro model, add extreme for gamer and have each of these models have a version with a beefy integrated CPU.

But it seems also a good idea for the manufacturers: They have to design, test and build each of their models, create advertisement etc., like configuring their assembly lines alone costs money. Further, compilers have to generate code for a specific architecture, which means that all my software I didn't compile myself ends up using an instruction set of the lowest common CPU, not utilizing whatever I bought fully.

Apple (not a fan ;-)) shows IMHO how it is done with their Apple Silicon: Basically even I understand which CPU choice would be the right one for me. The Steam Deck is IMHO another success story: As reference hardware I know easily if I can play a game, and it is easy to know if my hardware is faster than a Steam Deck. Compare that to games with hardware requirements like 'AMD TI 5800 8GB RAM' (made up model) which makes my life miserable.

What I am looking for is fact based knowledge:

• Why does it make (commercial) sense for AMD/Intel to create so many models?
• What are their incentives?
• What would happen, if they would reduce the amount of different CPUs they offer? (Is there historical knowledge?)

I need to settle an argument I started. My argument: olives are gross.

I will die on this hill.

I work with a person that went presented with a problem, works through it and arrives at the wrong solution. When I have them show me the steps they took, it seems like they interpret things incorrectly. This isn't a language barrier, and it's not like they aren't reading what someone wrote.

For example, they are working on a product, and needed to wait until the intended recipients of the product were notified by an email that they were going to get it. the person that sent the email to the recipients then forwarded that notification email to this person and said "go ahead and send this to them."

Most people would understand that they are being asked to send the product out. It's a regular process for them.

So he resent the email. He also sent the product, but I'm having a hard time understanding why he thought he was supposed to re-send the email.

I've tried breaking tasks down into smaller steps, writing out the tasks, post-mortem discussion when something doesn't go as planned. What other training or management tasks can I take? Or have I arrived at the "herding kittens" meme?

For some reason I've just never liked Spider-Man. He comes off as a whiney, ignorant child that never seems to grow up or mature despite everything he goes through. I love a good coming of age story, but he just never seems to become an adult.

When I want a little sweet treat I make smoothies.

My base is always frozen banana + milk + oats then do one of these:

Cinnamon + vanilla

Pumpkin + pumpkin spice+ brown sugar

Strawberries/blue berries

Cost like under a dollar to make a good cup and they are pretty filling.

Just curious since I think it is about to get a whole lot harder to search using google. hopefully this will signal the end of their monopoly.