The problem with that reasoning is it's assuming a clear boundary to what a "thought" is. Just like there wasn't a "first" human (because genetics are constantly changing), there wasn't a "first" thought.
Ancient animals had nervous systems that could not come close to producing anything we would consider a thought, and through gradual, incremental changes we get to humanity, which is capable of thought. Where do you draw the line? Any specific moment in that evolution would be arbitrary, so we have to accept a continuum of neurological phenomena that span from "not thoughts" to "thoughts." And again we get back to thoughts being reflections of a shared environment, so they build on a shared context, and none are original.
If you do want to draw an arbitrary line at what a thought is, then that first thought was an evolution of non-/proto-thought neurological phenomena, and itself wasn't 100% "original" under the definition you're using here.
I am quite nervous about the various posts on social media about "the next four years," implying once we get to the traditional election season that we'll have any part of our democracy left intact, let alone enough to actually elect a new president. Trump has seized dictatorial power in all but name within his first month in office. He has taken several powers the Constitution bestows on Congress for himself with no repercussions.
If people bide their time for four years instead of openly resisting now, we're going to get to "election season," and what will they do when they find out there's no election because Trump has suspended it due to his declaration of a national emergency over something? Are they going to go "oh crap, uh, uh, RESIST" all of a sudden after four years of nothing but "voting with their wallet"?
From your responses to others' comments, you're looking for a "thought" that has absolutely zero relationship with any existing concepts or ideas. If there is overlap with anything that anyone has ever written about or expressed in any way before, then it's not "100% original," and so either it's impossible or it's useless.
I would argue it's impossible because the very way human cognition is structured is based on prediction, pattern recognition, and error correction. The various layers of processing in the brain are built around modeling the world around us in a way to generate a prediction, and then higher layers compare the predictions with the actual sensory input to identify mismatches, and then the layers above that reconcile the mismatches and adjust the prediction layers. That's a long winded way to say our thoughts are inspired by the world around us, and so are a reflection of the world around us. We all share our part of this world with at least one other person, so we're all going to share commonalities in our thoughts with others.
But for the sake of argument, assume that's all wrong, and someone out there does have a truly original, 100% no overlap with anything that has come before, thought. How could they possibly express that thought to someone else? Communication between people relies on some kind of shared context, but any shared context for this thought means it's dependent on another idea, or "prior art," so it couldn't be 100% original. If you can't share the thought with anyone, nor express it in any way to record it (because that again is communication), it dies with you. And you can't even prove it without communicating, so how would someone with such an original thought convince you they've had it?
The options from other responses are better (gel, cold shrink tubing), but just for your edification, sand in a box can work as an extremely effective insulator for a short period. So heat up the soldering iron and stick it in a bed of sand in a box to take it in with you. Most of the heat won't escape the box, but it will spread through the tool, so you'll definitely want gloves.
More infections mean more chances to mutate into being able to spread human-human. I would expect a greater chance from the strain that's already spreading mammal to mammal, but human infections with any strain have a chance.
We have the technology and logistical infrastructure to stop this, but the incentive structure in this country is completely backwards for protecting health and safety. And that's very unlikely to chance any time soon. Get your masks ready.
Math, physics, and to a lesser extent, software engineering.
I got degrees in math and physics in college. I love talking about counterintuitive concepts in math and things that are just way outside everyday life, like transfinite numbers and very large dimensional vector spaces.
My favorite parts of physics to talk about are general relativity and the weirder parts of quantum mechanics.
My day job is software engineering, so I can also help people get started learning to program, and then the next level of building a solid, maintainable software project. It's more "productive" in the traditional sense, so it's satisfying to help people be more productive, but when it's just free time to shoot the shit, talking about math and science are way more fun.
Not autistic but my partner is. One of her hacks is having me put alarms on my phone so I can gently remind her of things. The alarms are too jarring for her to have them on her own phone.
I'm sorry, I mostly agree with the sentiment of the article in a feel-good kind of way, but it's really written like how people claim bullies will get their comeuppance later in life, but then you actually look them up later and they have high paying jobs and wonderful families. There's no substance here, just a rant.
The author hints at analogous cases in the past of companies firing all of their engineers and then having to scramble to hire them back, but doesn't actually get into any specifics. Be specific! Talk through those details. Prove to me the historical cases are sufficiently similar to what we're starting to see now that justifies the claims of the rest of the article.
No, he's just not going to comply. If he blatantly disregards the law in the US and gets away with it, why wouldn't he try it everywhere else? Even if there will be real consequences in Germany, that will take time to work through the legal system, and the election he's trying to steal is just weeks away.
Think of bad sleep or insufficient sleep like an injury. In ideal conditions your body heals it at a certain rate. You can make it take longer, or you can even make the injury worse, by not taking care of it, but you can't make it heal faster. And at some point, if you're consistently not taking care of it, you'll make part of your injury permanent.
Similarly with sleep, it's not a bank balance, it's damage to your body and brain that you need to repair. And you can only repair the damage with good sleep. You have to get good sleep until you feel better, and then you'll know you have recovered.
And if you consistently get bad sleep for too long (a week or more), your brain and body will be permanently changed. Like a permanent injury, you'll never fully recover some of the damage. It's hard to overemphasize how important good sleep is to your short- and long-term health.
They are letting it happen because (1) all 3 branches are controlled by his "team," and their ideology is dominated by tribalism, so they are complicit, and more than you would expect actually want him to do what he's doing, and (2) the last 80 years has seen nigh unlimited power transferred from the legislative branch to the President, and Musk currently has the full backing of the President, so there's very little that people working in the executive branch can actually do to stop it. The vast majority of the checks and balances built into the system assume at a high enough level you'll eventually get to an official governing in good faith, and that has now completely broken down.
But is this satire? After reading about the judge that put an injunction on Trump's order for all federal agencies to disregard birthright citizenship, I wondered if he was going to go Andrew Jackson "now let him enforce it" on it and tell the agencies to disregard the injunction as well.
When they say "two corporations" they're talking about the federal and state governments they referenced earlier.
It's part of a conspiracy theory that the US government is actually a corporation (and I guess state governments now, too?). The original theory I heard was that they never actually got the 16th amendment to the constitution ratified, so in order to levy income taxes on US citizens they secretly converted the federal government to a corporation and by having a birth certificate you are an employee of the government, rather than a citizen of the country. That's of course all made up and doesn't make any sense when held to 2 seconds of scrutiny, but I've met more than one person who believed it completely.
Finally a detailed map showing North Georgium and South Georgium separately. I hate that people are getting lazy and treating both of them as singular like they do the word "data".
Robin Williams as the Bicentennial Man. The movie was okay; his performance was amazing. I've struggled with mortality for a while, like I expect a lot of people do, and to see him as a character who started their existence immortal, and to choose mortality. His death in the movie hit me much, much harder than I expected. I haven't watched the movie again since my first viewing because I'm honestly afraid of going through that again.
So you want to tie internet access to national government authorization? That's a sure-fire way to get dissenters against their own government off the internet, but won't solve your bot problem when Facebook can lobby the federal government to get credentials for its own AI.
The problem with that reasoning is it's assuming a clear boundary to what a "thought" is. Just like there wasn't a "first" human (because genetics are constantly changing), there wasn't a "first" thought.
Ancient animals had nervous systems that could not come close to producing anything we would consider a thought, and through gradual, incremental changes we get to humanity, which is capable of thought. Where do you draw the line? Any specific moment in that evolution would be arbitrary, so we have to accept a continuum of neurological phenomena that span from "not thoughts" to "thoughts." And again we get back to thoughts being reflections of a shared environment, so they build on a shared context, and none are original.
If you do want to draw an arbitrary line at what a thought is, then that first thought was an evolution of non-/proto-thought neurological phenomena, and itself wasn't 100% "original" under the definition you're using here.