Who said it was an acceptable scenario? That’s not been suggested.
You’re saying we should belive any story that makes nuclear war sound even worse than it obviously is regardless of its scientific accuracy. Science should be objective truth not whatever serves the agenda you’re trying to push, even if it’s objectives are good.
Yeah, especially in the southern hemisphere, a few centuries later we might have slightly different genetics through rapid evolution via population collapse but we’d probably be back developing with a bit more accurate folk knowledge and probably actually a lot of remembered tech.
It’d be terrible to the people it happened to but barely a blip in the life history of the planet from the first evolution to the last lifeforms leaving or dying.
This sort of obviously emotionaly driven vitriol makes it look like you want people to belive this regardless of if it truth as you feel it serves an important goal. The other person on the debate has shown an understanding of the issue and history of this topic while remaining civil, I don’t see you counter any of his points or raise any evidence in your favor outside gishgallop links which you provide without explanation or demonstrated understanding.
I don’t know or really care who’s right because it’s meaningless but you certainly don’t look like the person with a valid position here.
And isn’t this the one people keep posting the dramatic headline without mentioning the damage only lasted until sunrise?
Oh nuclear got more expensive yet again and is even more of an economic disaster compared to renewables? I’m sure everyone is shocked.
But rich people can monopolize the nuclear power stations so we don’t have to fear regular people with power generation on their roof will be somewhat more self sufficient and less prone to the rich people spiking prices just to fuck them over.
Yeah you have intelligence in the scientific definition but I certainly wouldn’t use the word colloquially to describe you…
You’re objectively wrong and I’ve clearly demonstrated that so you’re calling me ai? Ok buddy, continue looking stupid then I guess
Again you’re confused, it’s the same difficulty people have with the word ‘fruit’ because in botany we use it very specifically but colloquially it means a sweet tasting enable bit of a plant regardless of what role it plays in reproduction. Colloquially you’d be correct to say that corn grain is not fruit but scientifically you’d be very wrong. Ever eaten an Almond and said ‘what a tasty fruit?’ probably not unless your a droll biology teacher making a point to your class.
Likewise in biology no one expects a slug or worms or similar to analyze and solve problems but if you look up scientific papers about slug intelligence you’ll find plenty, though a lot will also be about simulating their intelligence using various coding methods because that’s a popular phd thesis recently - computer science and biology merge in such interesting ways.
The term AI is a scientific term used in computer science and derives its terminology from definitions used in the science of biology.
What you’re thinking of is when your mate down the pub says ‘yeah he’s really intelligent, went to Yale and stuff’
They are different languages, the words mean different things and yes that’s confusing when terms normally only used in textbooks and academic papers get used by your mates in the pub but you can probably understand that almonds are fruit, peanuts are legumes but both will likely be found in a bag of mixed nuts - and there probably won’t be a strawberry in with them unless it was mixed by the pedantic biology teacher we met before…
Language is complex, AI is a scientific term not your friend at the bar telling you about his kid that’s getting good grades.
I use it for fun, frivolity, and beauty.
That’s because you don’t have a basic understanding of language, if you had been exposed to the word intelligence in scientific literature such as biology textbooks then you’d more easily understand what’s being said.
‘Rich in nutrients?! How can a banana be rich when it doesn’t have a job or generational wealth? Makes me so fucking mad when these scientists lie to us!!!’
The comment looks dumb to you because you understand the word ‘rich’ doesn’t only mean having lots of money, you’re used to it in other contexts - likewise if you’d read about animal intelligence and similar subjects then ‘how can you call it intelligence when it does know basic math’ or ‘how is it intelligent when it doesn’t do this thing literally only humans can do’ would sound silly too.
Wow it’s almost like running vital utilities as private for profit companies is a terrible idea and they should be nationalized
But people hate taxes, they’d rather be forced to pay a larger amount to a private company so shareholders get some of their money for free
This is probably the free gpt anyway, and the free specialist models are much better for coding than this one is going to be
That song is a big meme in edgelord communities at the moment so yeah zero chance they didn’t know
It’s really hard writing software and knowing every bit of it then seeing it as a new user to write docs.
Usong your analogy i think Ops question was really if you have a stack of transparent solar panels will the panel below get less power and the answer is of course it will. If one antenna is behind another there will be a small reduction in the power of the signal reaching it, probably very small but with enough of them you could theoretically construct a faraday cage of sorts.
People are answering what you asked but what you probably mean is in a 2d world where two antenna are perfectly in line with the transmitter will the first absorb some of the signal - yes it will, just like two wind turbines in a line it’s absorbing the energy from the medium and using it to do work.
It’s not always so simple, it might spit some of if out too if it doesn’t have anywhere else for it to go and it’ll do this in a certain pattern which can, depending on the distance and arrangement ,increase the signal received by the second one. This and similar principles are why you see so many odd shapes for antenna designs such as the many bars on a TV antenna which make it more directional.
Yet we had a big thread with everyone saying it was a conspiracy
You haven’t debunked anything at all, you simply made baseless allegations of white supremacy without even trying to justify them.
Peer reviewed science gets overturned by other peer reviewed science all the time, the other person also had peer reviewed science so you don’t get to just wave yours and win.
And yes your agenda is very obvious, you take the side of not wanting to be in a nuclear war - I think that’s pretty much a universally agreed upon position.
However you also have another facet to your opinion which is almost as universally disagreed with as your other position is agreed with - you think that science should be falsified so it seems to provide answers which suit your social and political aims rather than it being an effort to understand the world and reach a truthful and valid conclusion.
You were very aggressive and rude to someone who did nothing more than provide more context and dissenting evidence in a discussion about science, that’s not a good way to behave.