jimmycrackcrack

Wouldn't the hydrolysis of the water take energy that required fuel though? The claim seemed to be more that the water was the fuel so to speak, as in the same way that petrol is in current combustion engines.

My guess is they got confused with the concept of "flame wars" and "flaming" from forums. It doesn't quite match their definition of "unwanted" messages exactly, but it's not entirely far off either.

I was told a similar thing but the claim was that the person had invented an engine that ran on water haha.

Never thought of the idea of "alright" being an issue. I can see why it makes sense, it's obviously derived from "all right", though funnily enough that never occurred to me because I've always just thought of it as a word in its own right and never pondered its derivation.

So do you also "all ready" and "all though" and "all ways"? That just seems weird.

I don't know, not the worst in this thread at least.

They are quite exceptionally good and I really wish other consumers products had a website like that one with as much trust as that one.

Wouldn't you just get distracted and put it off for later like you already do when you already have control of yourself albeit through the very same ADHD-addled brain you were hoping would for some reason spend the one, in some way supernatural minute, highly effectively?

Yeh I think people like this idea because of a kind of ironic poetic justice since it's those guys who wanted to replace everyone else except themselves with AI, but if you think about how much you hated those uncaring bastards operating like robots just to extract an ounce of profit at whatever the human cost, imagine now actually being a robot. Also, if you ever had to deal with bullshit from those guys and resented having to grin and bear it even though you don't think they're particularly qualified and also know nothing about your job, imagine having to be "managed" by a fucking robot that tries to say patronising encouraging things because it's learned the very best pattern of speech to get the behaviour it wants out of you. Admittedly at least some of the decision making might be a bit more rational, but then every now and then AI gets things totally out of wack in the strangest ways and you'll have to just take those decisions, from a damn machine.

It's also good since it's low stakes. I mean I'd be furious if misidentified after I paid to use the game and but at the end of the day it's only a game.

Did you guys ghost one another or just lose contact? Because I think those are different.

The problem with answering that, is that there's no set standard for the appropriate amount of apathy so really however much there is, that's how much there should be and not too little or too much, that's just how apathetic humans are and there's nothing to compare against for judging appropriate levels. Why are we as apathetic as we are? In my opinion it's pretty similar to why climate change is so difficult to address, which makes sense as apathy is one of the biggest stumbling blocks to addressing it. In general, it's more difficult to energise, co-ordinate and sustain collective human effort on a large scale for issues that don't seem immediate, tangible, easily attributable, physically visible and where the solution and action to be taken isn't simple to understand, or the improvement simple to observe and also reasonably short term (or at least promises to be). Long term, society wide projects usually require more than just an appeal to better nature. People caring, people wanting to help each other, people wanting fairness or kindness or just treatment, as innate desires does work to motivate, but I think tends to work on mostly on the smaller scale, when it's for small in-groups, preferably people we've actually met and with immediate social pressures to reinforce these pro-social desires.

Human beings are capable of complex, difficult, awe-inspiring projects for "good" or "bad" but those tend to involve more diffuse motivations and more immediate rewards/incentives where those motivations are their most removed from the original instigators. Some few people involved might be motivated by altruism or something esoteric like an interest in science or a religious belief, but if their goals involve the masses it's usually going to mean filtering their motivation down through stakeholders, to careerists, money makers and then on down to people looking for subsistence and in many cases down to people who are enslaved and don't want to be killed or harmed and so work.

To top all that off there's the more obvious problem of the difficulty in keeping more and more people in bigger and bigger projects all on the same page about what to do, how to do it, or if we even want to do it. If the important issue you're thinking of is for example inequality, it's going to be very hard to get agreement on what that actually is, if that's even a good or bad thing, how we should deal with it or even if we should deal with it and many of the people in this debate will probably be passionate in their position. Complex "important" issues also tend to involve beneficiaries who would somewhat understandably not want to work against their own interests and so shape their environment to the best of their ability such that the easier thing to do is tolerate the issue making the near impossible mountain of getting human beings together for the greater good harder still by design. This theory maybe has some flaws, depending on how you frame the important issue. If for example the important issue were crime, you could argue that for the most part for most people it's fairly easy to get them not to just murder strangers on a whim or for some petty gain, even racists probably walk through an average day surrounded by people of many ethnicities and cultures but don't generally (with notable exceptions) need to be convinced or induced not to physically harm everyone they walk past and this tends to hold true on a larger scale not just the in-groups as I described, but as a rule of thumb, in my view I think this is basically how we operate. How much we care, how much we can muster courage, how much personal risk or resources or energy we can spare for manifesting ideals is usually proportional to the degree of direct impact they have upon us personally, how close we are to the people affected by an issue and how easy it is to identify and rectify the issue and also how long it will take and how often you'll have to act. I think you could probably draw direct, inversely proportional lines on a scale of how much apathy is shown and a declining slope on any of those measures. I suspect this is from our nature and biological origins, but this is not an assertion I can back up rigorously.

Finally, depending on the issue, sometimes it really is rationally better to tolerate an issue where all the solutions are bad and could make things worse. Tends to be difficult to reach consensus on when we're in such a situation.

Well if we're here seeing the post and responding...guess