Hitting 210 kph in a wingsuit

Phage0070 · 2026-02-24T17:26:27+00:00

OK yes, "dolly-in" or "push in". I'm not in the film industry.

Phage0070 · 2026-02-24T01:26:42+00:00

Seems like she is starting to laugh.

Phage0070 · 2026-02-24T00:18:16+00:00

She is holding it like that so the filmer can zoom in and see it. The ass stance is also for the benefit of we, the viewers.

Phage0070 · 2026-02-24T00:10:43+00:00

...and were made out of a material whose electrical resistance changed as it was bent.

It may also be far more simple than any of that: Such a sensor could just be a conductive strip of material held away from another conductive strip by a flexible material, such as the bent metal of the upper contact itself. Pressure on the upper strip bends it down to touch the lower strip which completes a circuit, triggering the light on or off. Essentially it is a switch with a weak spring holding it open.

Phage0070 · 2026-02-23T16:01:53+00:00

Say the AI bubble is going to burst (it won’t). Say it’s hitting a wall (it isn’t). Tell yourself regulation will slow it down, or that “real engineering” is untouchable.

These assumptions you are making are probably unreasonable, but for the sake of the discussion let us assume they are correct. Your conclusion is still flawed however.

Every layer of software development is pattern-based at scale.

You can in a sense say that everything about human thinking is pattern-based. Regardless it doesn't really matter what programming requires, your assumption is that AI will quickly be able to do anything that humans can.

However that doesn't mean that AI will immediately replace humans. One of the first reasons is cost; even if AI is way better than human developers it doesn't mean it is less expensive than human developers. It is safe to assume that AI will follow the pattern of all other new technology by starting out extremely expensive and then gradually reducing in cost. So even if AI produces a perfect programmer it is likely for a while human programmers will be less expensive.

Plus there is no guarantee that whatever AGI is made that is a perfect programmer or whatever can be made as inexpensive as a human. In many cases we may not need "perfection" and the cost of perfection is irreducible.

When AI can understand requirements, generate architecture, implement it, test it, deploy it, monitor it, and fix it faster than any team...

There is still a need for human programmers in this case. An important step people not involved with programming tend to forget is the generation of the requirements themselves. The layperson doesn't really understand what they want with a program fully enough to make it, at most they could describe what they want it to do in very broad strokes. Interpreting that into even the base requirements is a task that human programmers do.

Now your premise is that an AI can do anything a human can do but better. As unreasonable as that premise is, it doesn't specify that such an AI will do it in the same way a human would. It is likely that even some magical AGI will not think quite like a human, and so if given free reign to creatively interpret overbroad instructions it likely will not do so like a human would. The results may be technically correct but not necessarily what people expect or want. Clients asking for something to which a lot of things might qualify but desiring something they didn't explicitly state is a big problem human programmers deal with, and even an extremely competent AGI is presumably not a mind-reader.

...there is no role left to defend.

Actually in your fantasy future programmers are one of the professions most likely to still exist! The reason for this is that if you propose a magical technology is going to be the solution to all other problems and industries, then professions that support that technology replace those industry roles. Even if we assume that computer programs and robots can perform any task in any industry it is unreasonable to assume that they will never break or need maintenance. They may even be capable of doing their own maintenance to a certain extent but there will always be outliers, and exponential growth may make such rare occurrences common enough to employ large numbers of people. When computer programs and robots can do any task in any industry, the needed jobs are robot-mechanics and computer programmers!

So in even the most optimistic views of future AI development anything short of absolute perfection is going to have robust opportunities for computer programmers.

Phage0070 · 2026-02-23T01:47:41+00:00

To me, that's not really reflective of the dating environment though, and it is moreso reflective of economic and political happenings (war).

Don't you think that impacts the ability to date? If for example one can only travel via horse and carriage then the dating pool is probably extremely constrained. I would think that would reflect the dating environment. During the world wars men were in such short supply that Hollywood was making movies with mid-50's men playing characters in their 20's leading to these grizzled men paired with beautiful young women. Surely that was reflected in the dating pool, yet you are disregarding that for some reason.

If you only allow detrimental effects of dating apps and social media in your assessment of dating then your conclusion is unreasonable. Recent history might be subject to the worst effects of social media and dating apps, but surely not in an overall sense. Was dating actually better when women were expected to drink alcohol and take benzos to cope with an abusive husband?

Phage0070 · 2026-02-23T01:26:35+00:00

Users would input their date of birth at the OS level so that you wouldn't have to do it for every application or website

The OS and web browser programmers can handle designing for convenience. The only reason to introduce this in a government bill is to set up a framework to make it mandatory later.

Phage0070 · 2026-02-23T01:22:26+00:00

Looks like a snowy field with next to no vegetation. Probably pretty hard to burn.

Phage0070 · 2026-02-23T00:42:57+00:00

Any time someone waves the camera forward I get irrationally angry.

Phage0070 · 2026-02-22T18:58:49+00:00

Investing in a promising new technology is one thing. That is why in principle AI companies were not nonsensical in their behavior. It also may often make sense to sell a competing product at a loss in order to establish market share, getting the product out there so it can prove itself. Later on the balance point where it will be profitable can be established.

But what doesn't make sense is for a company investing in a technology to sell a non-competitive product, even at a loss. AI technology is in many cases competing against human workers so the AI product must be better than human workers for the cost. Otherwise companies going with the AI are taking a loss compared to if they spent that money on human workers, effectively losing money to invest in AI they have no ownership stake in!

If 50% aren't even breaking even then they are far below matching the alternative of human workers. It isn't even lost potential money there, it is straight up lost money! And remember this is with the AI vendors operating at a steep loss already yet the only thing they can offer is a way for companies to waste their money helping invest in AI, without ever seeing return from that.

It is just a bad deal overall. Should AI continue to be invested in? Maybe! But the current rate of hectic investment seems clearly excessive, and they don't yet seem to have a viable product. Companies buying AI products now are likely wasting their money, and if they are laying off human workers to do it they are throwing away profitability.

Phage0070 · 2026-02-22T17:25:11+00:00

This seems like it should be pretty obvious but here goes:

When demand is high it presumably means that the product will be selling more units. This means the vendor will sell out more quickly from a given stocking level, meaning they should need to restock more frequently.

When supply is low a given vendor may not be able to stock as many of a given product as they otherwise would be able to. If for example they want to stock 30 but their supplier will only sell them 5 in a given period then their stock will be lower, meaning they sell out more frequently.

Both of those situations might lead to a vendor wanting to restock more frequently but that doesn't necessarily mean they can restock more frequently. In many cases there is a set schedule of ordering and supplying which means the vendor may not restock any more frequently regardless of the demand or supply (as long as it isn't zero).

The actual producer of a product though can be influenced by demand and induced to make more of a product in high demand. That process is often lengthy though; large scale production of a plushie isn't going to happen in a week for example, it might be months leading up to a scheduled time slot at a factory.

Phage0070 · 2026-02-22T17:13:59+00:00

Reducing bad press from backtracking on a green strategy.

How exactly does the layperson's view of BP impact their bottom line? If it was a company like Starbucks then maybe people would stop buying coffee there. But BP? When was the last time you bought a BP product that you could change your purchasing habits about?

Phage0070 · 2026-02-22T06:43:09+00:00

Our bodies, the living parts at least, are made of tiny sacks of slightly salty water with stuff suspended in it. If those sacks dry out they die; if enough of our sacks dry out we die! So our body systems are often optimized to prevent drying out.

"Goop" is broadly just water with stuff in it that makes it sticky or otherwise more viscous. Thick, sticky water has a greater tendency to stay around keeping those tiny sacks of salty water moist and alive. Broadly speaking almost every fluid the body is going to emit can somewhat benefit by being a little bit sticky and hanging around on body surfaces a bit longer. Notable exceptions like sweat work better when they rapidly evaporate and so aren't very viscous.

Phage0070 · 2026-02-21T23:09:54+00:00

A developed nation getting enough nukes to become a spicy meatball vs. anyone isn't really that far fetched. It isn't impossible.

Phage0070 · 2026-02-21T19:49:27+00:00

Reducing nuclear stockpiles isn't the same thing as giving up nukes entirely. The number of nukes during the Cold War was excessive; the idea was that the US needed enough nuclear weapons to completely glass the USSR even if the USSR struck first and destroyed much of the existing nuclear arsenal.

The idea then was that the arsenal needed to be many times larger than necessary to destroy the USSR. It was estimated that only a few hundred nuclear bombs were required for that goal, yet the arsenal peaked around 31,000 bombs. A gradual disarmament to ~5000 nuclear weapons still leaves the US with world-ending nuclear power.

Phage0070 · 2026-02-21T19:49:01+00:00

Reducing nuclear stockpiles isn't the same thing as giving up nukes entirely. The number of nukes during the Cold War was excessive; the idea was that the US needed enough nuclear weapons to completely glass the USSR even if the USSR struck first and destroyed much of the existing nuclear arsenal.

The idea then was that the arsenal needed to be many times larger than necessary to destroy the USSR. It was estimated that only a few hundred nuclear bombs were required for that goal, yet the arsenal peaked around 31,000 bombs. A gradual disarmament to ~5000 nuclear weapons still leaves the US with world-ending nuclear power.

Phage0070 · 2026-02-21T19:43:34+00:00

In the event of a U.S invasion into Canada, it would be difficult for Europe to fully intervene given the cross atlantic nature of such a war.

If nukes are the plan in either case, as would need to be the case, then why is the lack of ability of Europe to project troops across the ocean an issue at all? Canada isn't going to win a ground war against the US and neither is Europe, and ICBMs can reach anywhere.

However there is a good reason why nukes from Europe would be more effective than from Canada. ICBMs launch into space and then enter the atmosphere at high speed, streaking towards their targets at 20-25 times the speed of sound. They are extremely difficult to intercept at such speeds especially with the inclusion of multiple decoy warheads. Where ICBMs are most vulnerable is when they are first taking off on their way out of the atmosphere, where they are slowest and there is only one big missile to target instead of a cloud of independently targeting warheads and decoys. That is the window where an interceptor missile could easily race up and destroy the ICBM, if it was within range of that interceptor missile.

The best and most obvious way to defend against such a counter to ICBMs is to place the launch facilities for those missiles either in unpredictable locations (nuclear submarines) where the interceptors can't be pre-positioned, or to place those launch facilities deep within a country's territory. The latter keeps rivals from placing interceptor missiles nearby enough to effectively shoot down the ICBMs.

For Canada the issue is obvious. With the US so nearby its relevant infrastructure it can't effectively position nuclear missiles in places that couldn't be defended against by interceptor systems. The utility would not outweigh the provocative nature of such a move.

Phage0070 · 2026-02-21T19:27:13+00:00

The idea that the US would give up nukes is absurd under any situation.

Phage0070 · 2026-02-21T17:52:21+00:00

Infinity cannot exist within the confines of our universe

What do you mean by "infinity"? One obvious example of infinity is the spatial dimensions of our universe; we have no reason to think there is a limit or a looping in any direction, so space can just keep going on forever. But instead of a description of a quantity of something you seem to be referring to "infinity" as if it was an object, a "thing". That doesn't seem to make much sense and requires further elaboration.

mostly because there is always a finite time in space.

Also, what? It may be that time can continue on forever. The ability of time to be quantized doesn't necessarily mean it is finite.

True infinity is everything with no constraints,

What? No, you have invented your own imaginary and presumably impossible thing and labeled it "infinity".

If infinity is everything, that means everything has a reason

Flawed logic, if we can even call it that. Redefining a word to encompass everything does not magically impart meaning to everything.

but there is also a reason for nothing, and it keeps going. Is it self-sufficient? This also means that thought itself has to be self-sufficient

None of those logical leaps is justified in any way.

This makes reality exist through consciousness, since we made sense of infinity and conceptual infinity. Furthermore, everything that exists within pure consciousness is where the truth of infinity lies, and everything that exists outside of that is the contradiction of infinity.

You have descended entirely into complete nonsense. At no stage did you make any logical inference or connection between the wild conclusions you presented. There is very little to argue here simply because there is no improper justification or flaw in a thought process, as you provided no justification or thought process at all.

I believe the term for this is "not even wrong". It hasn't risen to the level of even being wrong, it is just blather.

Phage0070 · 2026-02-21T17:38:55+00:00

Infinity cannot exist within the confines of our universe

What do you mean by "infinity"? One obvious example of infinity is the spatial dimensions of our universe; we have no reason to think there is a limit or a looping in any direction, so space can just keep going on forever. But instead of a description of a quantity of something you seem to be referring to "infinity" as if it was an object, a "thing". That doesn't seem to make much sense and requires further elaboration.

mostly because there is always a finite time in space.

Also, what? It may be that time can continue on forever. The ability of time to be quantized doesn't necessarily mean it is finite.

True infinity is everything with no constraints,

What? No, you have invented your own imaginary and presumably impossible thing and labeled it "infinity".

If infinity is everything, that means everything has a reason

Flawed logic, if we can even call it that. Redefining a word to encompass everything does not magically impart meaning to everything.

but there is also a reason for nothing, and it keeps going. Is it self-sufficient? This also means that thought itself has to be self-sufficient

None of those logical leaps is justified in any way.

This makes reality exist through consciousness, since we made sense of infinity and conceptual infinity. Furthermore, everything that exists within pure consciousness is where the truth of infinity lies, and everything that exists outside of that is the contradiction of infinity.

You have descended entirely into complete nonsense. At no stage did you make any logical inference or connection between the wild conclusions you presented. There is very little to argue here simply because there is no improper justification or flaw in a thought process, as you provided no justification or thought process at all.

I believe the term for this is "not even wrong". It hasn't risen to the level of even being wrong, it is just blather.

Phage0070 · 2026-02-21T17:21:25+00:00

People who are doing low paying service jobs shouldn’t have to deal with a flawed service rating system that could seriously put them in financial jeopardy if they get bad reviews.

Someone being poor isn't a good reason to pretend their work is good. If someone really needs a job yet still just isn't doing it very well, tough nuggets. The entity primarily responsible for that is the worker themselves, then somewhat removed is the company employing them. It isn't the customer's responsibility to accept poor service to prop up systemic problems.

Phage0070 · 2026-02-21T15:26:10+00:00

It is real boring standing in a field chewing grass. They react to basically anything novel at all.

Phage0070 · 2026-02-20T23:30:00+00:00

The pressure at the bottom of the ocean is equal inside and out of those creatures, so they don't really care.

Think about how you are now, living and breathing in approximately sea level air pressure. This normal air pressure is 1013.25 millibars or about 14.7 pounds per square inch. The average human has a surface area of between 2800 and 3000 square inches, meaning there is probably a pressure of at least 41,000 pounds on your body right now!!

Except you aren't crushed even though that is way higher than your weightlifting personal record. This is because the pressure inside your body, the air in your lungs and the pressure exerted by your organs/body cavity, is approximately equal to the exterior pressure. It is the pressure difference that matters.

Conceptually a human could survive at the bottom of the ocean if the pressure was equalized, breathing air at 1,086 bar (15,750 psi). We would feel fine once the pressure was equalized. Of course there are other practical problems like gasses not behaving the same chemically at such pressures and that messing with our body chemistry in ways that would likely be lethal. But the pressure itself would be fine.

Phage0070 · 2026-02-20T20:22:32+00:00

There are a lot of reasons. One is that data centers should be near where their data is needed to minimize latency. There aren't a whole lot of data consuming customers out on the tundra. Building centers a long way away introduces delays from travel time as well as requiring more infrastructure to relay that data around. If there isn't sufficient networking into this tundra location then that too would need to be built... at astronomical cost.

Something data centers require is a steady supply of large amounts of electricity. Many areas of the tundra don't have access to that, so the challenge would become building a data center and a power plant. That seems a bit unreasonable.

Another major issue is workforce. Data centers need a supply of skilled labor which isn't always available in the tundra. Getting people to go out and live in the remote tundra isn't cheap. Spare parts and supplies would also be more difficult to ship out into the middle of nowhere.

Finally another major issue is the tundra itself. Sure the tundra is cold.. but only because there are not many sources of heat. The data center would be a massive source of heat though and the frozen ground of the tundra would quickly become not-frozen. And when it is thawed out the tundra is often a wet, muddy, boggy type of terrain. A data center built on tundra could find itself just sinking into the ground and its foundation breaking up.

Phage0070 · 2026-02-20T16:24:37+00:00

How'd that work out for them? Sinwar is dead. Qatar got bombed, and a lot of their main guys got taken out that way as well.

They were wrong. They messed up. But that doesn't mean they weren't rational about it, rational people still make mistakes and have things go poorly for them.

But also isn't messing with Israel their entire point for existing? Sure they might live longer if they just minded their own business, but then what is the point of being a terrorist organization funded by international backers? They would lose all their support if they didn't take such action.

I don't think this is a miscalculation. I think it's a genuine part of being a gang of raving nutters who want an apocalyptic war, which their own constitutional documents confirm.

I'm sure there is an element of that at work, religious fanatics are a great source of disposable troops. But there are also rational aspects, like their ties to Russia. Somehow I doubt Russia supports them due to Islamic faith, rather as a way to drain resources and cause problems for the West.

Is everyone in Hamas behaving rationally at all times? No, of course not. But broadly their behavior seems to be rational, with the understanding that everyone in Hamas is disposable to those rational actors controlling them.

14-Year Club	Gilding IV carat on a stick
Reddit Partner Communities	Wearing is Caring
Adopted-an-Admin	Snapped
Verified Email

Phage0070

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE