oof. My guy, I salute your tenacity. These folks here are the wrong crowd to ever give an inch on that stuff though.
oof. My guy, I salute your tenacity. These folks here are the wrong crowd to ever give an inch on that stuff though.
wasn’t the big deal with the Russians that it was at the level of the entire organization rather than done by limited specific individuals?
The article explains it as tagging your own cells in your body with a marker that makes the immune system ignore them. Doesn’t seem like a foreign body encountered sporadically would work. Allergies and autoimmune (like CL IV celiac) are different classifications of hypersensitivity with different mediating mechanisms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersensitivity
I mean, it’s making it to human trials so seems a lot more real than most of these “kills cancer cells in a petri dish” sort of things.
one with wheels on it, right? Maybe important to note
then we get to really specifically define individual, perspective, and perception (can you perceive while unconscious? I guess?), all sorts of fun knots to tie oneself into. I always thought the difference in sense vs. perception was the thinking about it, but if it’s processed at all by the “unconscious” I guess it’s still perception? I mean, I’m gettting twisted up thinking if my individual consciousness has a perspective from which it perceives the world
I think it’s more they are murdering the current instance of a pattern of matter and with it the biological implementation of the pattern of consciousness. Another instance of the same pattern is created near simultaneously. To flip it, aren’t they life creating machines as much as murder machines?
Is there a clear cut distinction between consciousness and self awareness? I think based on common usage, most folks wouldn’t say you were conscious when sleeping, as usually it’s said when sleeping you are unconscious. Sure your brain is still doing stuff and it’s not just “keep the heart beating” stuff, but you’re not aware of it.
That last one isn’t really fair, we’re animals and have attachments that can’t be logically reasoned away. Our brains aren’t entirely controlled by our conscious thoughts. You can believe 100% that the patterns of matter, not the matter itself, make the person but still not “feel” good about it.
Agree for Occam’s if someone is actually suggesting they are replaced nightly or your last Thursdayism, but as for conceiving of parallels to a made up teleportation technology and its philosophical implications, is the break in consciousness/self awareness for sleep not a reasonable comparison?
I mean, is there a scientific consensus on what constitutes consciousness? I thought that was a stumbling point on trying to pin down the various parts of the study of it. I wouldn’t say brain activity ceases while sleeping like that other comment but I’m in the camp that thinks the break in consciousness/awareness-of-being in a ST transporter is not really different than the break when sleeping.
They still can’t come up with anything other than “it’s not safe!” And “you’re so irresponsible”?
Previous articles on this say the water is less contaminated than that which comes out of some of China’s plants.
This article: IAEA says 10,000 becquerels per liter is the safe limit. Japan’s output will be 63 per liter.
Yet they’ve managed to fit speaker openings at each end. They could do it, just would cost a little bit more.
I get that this was written to be like, “dish soap OMG!” But there is nothing in here explaining why that might be wrong or dangerous. Why not a sentence like, “instead X lubricant should have been used because Y according to Boeing”? Underground water and sewer pipes that fit together and continuously withstand a larger pressure differential than the aircraft portals in planes use “pipe soap” to help fit the bell and spigot together. If it’s wrong, tell us why! I thought the bolts were found to be the reason it failed anyway. Even if “Boeing assembly instructions thought to be insufficient by workers” is the main message, that doesn’t grab the clicks though, huh? I’m expecting too much from a business insider article I guess. [Inebriated internet grumbling]