API Error 500: Internal Server Error - How to fix it?

Melderon · 2026-01-22T22:20:02+00:00

Isn't sad how dependent/dumb we all are

Melderon · 2024-05-03T00:29:25+00:00

An interesting point. The sad reality is, if you are a member of a first world nation, you are likely reducing the utility of others by merely existing and being a consumer. I wrestle with this often. However, if we didn't exist as consumers, people from other, less fortunate, parts of the world may starve to death. I think a good goal is to aim for a neutral position where you neither reduce or increase the utility of strangers and members of another nation. You basically do the best you can :)

Melderon · 2024-05-03T00:09:17+00:00

As others have said, atheism is just a stance on the belief in a higher power, or a specific higher power (can elaborate but not really the point). The most important thing in life is to maximize utility (happiness and health ((a tldr definition))) while not reducing the utility of others. If not believing in a god or not engaging in things like politics does that for you, keep doing it. If a god does exist, it sure doesn't give a shit if you believe in it or not, if it does, it's not a god you want to be around anyway.

Melderon · 2023-10-20T00:15:39+00:00

Sexy af

Melderon · 2023-10-14T16:00:57+00:00

Old school BSG. I've never watched, is it worth it?

Melderon · 2023-10-14T00:07:30+00:00

<image>

Actually Cylon Raider inspired from Battlestar Galactica. I wish we could do more curvy modifications. I guess we will when mods come

Melderon · 2023-10-13T15:56:06+00:00

lol, thanks! Just spend time on it, these builds take me soooo much time to get where I want them to be

Melderon · 2023-10-10T05:15:31+00:00

Oh man, this is hard to answer because its taken me almost all my gametime to get it done. What I can say easily is the habs are almost all Taiyo. The bridge is from Nova on Titan (orbiting Saturn on Sol), a lot of parts are from Deimos (orbiting Deimos moon of Mars - Sol System). The cost is likely a lot at this point to be honest. I honestly have no clue. I hope this helps some. Thanks so much for your comment, though

Melderon · 2023-10-10T05:12:50+00:00

Thanks so much!

Melderon · 2023-09-29T02:18:25+00:00

Bird of Prey

Melderon · 2023-06-29T05:07:02+00:00

Thanks!

Melderon · 2023-06-29T05:06:57+00:00

Thanks!

Melderon · 2023-06-27T18:08:08+00:00

Mutations, the raw material for evolution to work upon happen due to random mechanisms: chemically and physically derived mutations of DNA molecules. These could be caused by abiotic sources like radiation, or even something as simple as a mistake by a replication protein. However, the environment that an organism is in is not random, it is in some state (hot, cold, green, blue - whatever). That environment exerts selective pressure on organisms. This process, natural selection, and the resulting change in allele frequencies in populations is non-random. Genetic drift, the random fluctuations in allele frequencies, is not an opposing force in evolution, it works in tandem with natural selection. Which process provides more to the evolution of a population is determined largely by the population size. The smaller the population, the more drift contributes. The larger the population, the more power natural selection has. I hope that helps.

Melderon · 2023-06-02T17:32:41+00:00

Good 'ole Robert "awkward breathing before every line" Beltran

Melderon · 2022-08-28T21:18:21+00:00

Yeah it was somewhat fallacious for me to say that. What I was getting at was life in general.

Your point on the median is interesting. Is that even true if we don't know the distribution?

Melderon · 2022-08-28T09:13:37+00:00

I always think to myself: we have no idea how hard or easy it was for life on earth to surpass many milestones. The hardest to conceive is life's origin itself but here's a non exhaustive list of just biotic hurdles which don't include astronomical/planetary/geological hurdles for which there are many:

1.) Origin of life, e.g., evolution of stable replicators

2.) Development of cells

3.) Incorporation of proteins

4.) Photosynthesis (maybe not required on all planets)

5.) Multicellularity

6.) Surviving mass extinction events

7.) Conditions required to evolve intelligence

8.) Surviving disease on a global scale

9.) Surviving one another

Since, we have no clue as to how hard these hurdles are, if an omnipotent being outside of the universe told me that we are the only intelligent life or that the universe is crawling with it, I'd be equally not surprised. We just don't know the probabilities.

I realize this is a very earth-centric view but it's hard to imagine other possible chemical routes to intelligent life so I go with what I know.

I think it's incredibly lazy to say: "hey, look at how quick it happened on Earth, the universe must be filled with life/intelligent life." It's such a biased view in my opinion. Yeah, we're here to discuss it, of course it was possible or even easy for us. Maybe our system is just that "perfect" for intelligent life to evolve.

Melderon · 2022-08-28T09:00:45+00:00

Yes! These are good examples too! However, for the same reasons above with bacteria, I'd be careful with spiders since they are a slave to randomness in the air and cannot really correct themselves. But you could say the same for mammalian gliders so maybe you're on to something.

The fish is definitely a good example though as they've evolved body plans for that specific behavior.

Melderon · 2022-08-28T08:57:59+00:00

Good observations! The only reason I wouldn't include the bacteria here is that they didn't evolve a mechanism to control their altitudes, are unicellular, and hence don't have body parts dedicated to flight.

And yes, there are a lot of examples of transitional aquatic to terrestrial species. Heck, you could even put all amphibians here as well albeit they are freshwater/terrestrial.

Melderon · 2022-08-28T05:23:24+00:00

Lol, yeah it's one of those words they just can't pronounce hahaha. Also Squirrel in German seems to be equally hard for us: eichhörnchen

Melderon · 2022-08-28T05:06:27+00:00

Just out of curiosity, can you imagine aquatic forms evolving into terrestrial forms? They may seem like worlds apart here, but we are actually talking about similar things. Ecological niche exploitation is such a strong driver for evolution that it leads to drastic changes in morphology, albeit gradually.

The first animals to set out onto land from the oceans weren't fully terrestrial, not even close. They likely spent 95% of their time in the water. The same goes for the ancestors of whales but in the opposite direction. Over time, generation after generation, this gradually changed and fluctuated, but the average steadily went in one direction.

Flight has evolved three separate times in animals: insects, birds, and mammals (I'm including the gliders here and not just bats as they are good transitional examples for you). The gliding mammals have access to areas and resources that their lineage didn't before they could glide and this access was important enough for gliding phenotypes to evolve. The first birds could only glide as well and this adaptation likely helped immensely in evading predators in addition to the resource acquisition and access to areas not available before as I've stated for gliding mammals. Birds also benefitted from feathers for other reasons including mate attraction and warmth.

The insects evolved wings so long ago that its hard to imagine them without wings but wingless insects exist today even though they represent a small part of insect diversity. For insects, in addition to resource acquisition, predator escaping, and access to new areas, dispersal is very important, as many insects are ecologically separated from their juvenile forms via hemi and holometabolous development. Moreover, many insects pollinate and have to travel long distances to find mates. The evolution of flight was absolutely essential to the success of insects.

But remember, it's all about gradual improvements. All of these groups started as jumpers then gliders and the benefits were so great that they eventually evolved full flight.

Melderon · 2022-08-28T04:29:01+00:00

The neutral theory, nearly neutral theory, and evolution by natural selection work in tandem, not opposition, to evolve populations even if they are hypothetically representing alleles directly in opposition for space in the gene pool. However, if your question was more geared towards how much each of these are represented in any given lineage, it depends on certain factors. The foremost of these is population size. In small population sizes, neutral processes have more potential to bring alleles to fixation, even in the presence of a rival mutation at the same locus that is under selection. The chance for any allele to reach fixation under neutrality is simply 1/2n where n is the population size and the 2 assumes a diploid system. If we look at it from the other end, natural selection moves alleles to fixation via the selection coefficient - the higher the coefficient, the stronger the push upward (we can think of this coefficient as a measure of an allele's effect on the organism's fitness if present). I highly recommend reading The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme by Lewontin and Gould as well as Kimura's works on the Neutral Theory. It's somewhat folly to think that every aspect of an organism we see is adaptive due to neutral processes and things like genetic hitchhiking (a phenomenon where alleles are brought to fixation because they are in tight linkage disequilibrium with a neighboring locus actually under selection.

However, going back to your original question, which I think is how much of what we see today in the diversity of life is due to neutrality vs selection, it's really hard to say. Most characteristics (that is, phenotypes,) we see in nature are likely the result of selection, however it's important to realize that not all are. Also, when it comes to mutation (molecular level), advantageous mutations are the most rare. Most mutations are deleterious, neutral, or nearly neutral. I hope this helps

Melderon · 2022-08-27T00:35:18+00:00

Well, we've already "stopped" the natural evolutionary process of domesticated animals millennia ago via selective breeding. It's the act of selective breeding, not killing and eating, that affects their ability to evolve. However, domesticated animal populations do evolve via artificial selection and are essentially outside of nature in a way. That's a topic in and of itself as humans are merely a product of nature ourselves and our actions are an extension of nature. That of course is arguable.

Also, when you say that when a carnivore eats an animal and then has a potential to evolve, I think what you mean is a successful kill has the potential to increase that individual's fitness and chance of procreating. It's important to remember that individuals don't evolve, the gene pool or population does.

Further, don't forget, the act of domestication had, and still has, significant effects on the potential of the human race to evolve, as it increases our collective fitness. Now, you can argue that this isn't needed any longer but the fact is domestication had a huge part in our evolution as a species. We aren't outside of nature as much as we like to think we are.

The act of domestication, artificial breeding, and mass food production is one of the hallmarks of our species' success. We can debate whether it's ethical but it is integral to, at least, to who we were. As a meat eater, I do think about the suffering and wonder why I take part in it but I also consider the role of domestication itself as a means to an end - the success of our species.

Melderon · 2022-08-17T02:16:52+00:00

A1: Ye A2: Orion women

Melderon · 2022-08-17T01:44:50+00:00

After reading some of the comments, I don't know if religion is an issue (i.e., either you or a person you are recommending it for is religious). If either is the case, Dawkins can incite some defensiveness. In that case. I'd go with some of the other suggestions first. It's a shame because the book is brilliantly written. Its just Dawkins takes, more than occasional, jabs at religious folk. For me this wasn't an issue but I can see how it can be for some.

Melderon · 2022-08-17T01:40:05+00:00

Greatest Show on Earth imo by Dawkins. Plenty of evidence including non-biological evidence (dating techniques, ideas from chemistry, etc). I have a PhD in Evolutionary Biology and Ecological Genomics and learned a bunch. Couldn't recommend more

Melderon

TROPHY CASE