I like how the Apache goes “wizz.”

Or is that the SAM missing the Apache?

It can be difficult to tell ahead of time what will trigger a flashback or other reaction. Marvel movies, for example, include a significant level of guns and violence, but I have never experienced a reaction from them. Other movies, like Blackhawk Down, can send me into a spiral for a couple of days. I also cannot stand movies where the Army Man is the superhero as a result of his elite training - which was and remains a trope in many horror movies. Those don’t cause flashbacks, they just piss me off.

This was just a NSFW type flag for those folks who might be subject to that kind of reaction.

Just a recommendation - this might be one to skip if you have combat-related PTSD. The scenes from the trailer were quite realistic, and that was on my phone.

Negative tip value.

Ivermectin for these people is basically like Windex in Big Fat Greek Wedding.

Uno Reverse

Thanks!

I have always loved the OED. As a kid I used to sit in the library and just read it. It was always a dream of mine to buy my own copy and just have it the way people used to have encyclopedias.

That was amazing! I can’t believe this is the first time I’ve seen this.

“Every customer should be greeted when they walk into the store.”

The singular “they” is traditional in English - it is very much proper English and has been around (iirc) since the 17th century. It’s only a big deal now because conservatives want to make gender a factor in elections.

There is a reason why colonizers sent missionaries as well as soldiers.

This is the reason.

The difference is that Elon would have said “And we can do this today!” back in 2017.

And their right to tell people that their immoral and going to hell gives atheists the right to mock them.

And you’re also entirely wrong about atheist groups only existing for making memes. I’ve seen many conversations in atheist communities that are people discussing religion, the motivation to hold a belief, metaphysics and epistemological theories, history, biology, physics, anthropology and so on. People in other atheist communities (eg ex-Christian, ex-Muslim) do that as well.

I have to think you know little to nothing about the topic.

I can give you my impression and that of the people I spoke to about it. I’m coming from the perspective of a theoretical biologist who was heavily involved with computational models of complex systems - particularly ones with biological foundations. I worked with simulations ranging from molecular cell biology up to ecosystems.

I don’t want this to sound dismissive, but CA are cartoonishly simple versions of complex systems. Once you get past illustrating the idea that simple rules can give rise to complex behaviors, that they’re Turing complete, and that there are neat and interesting phenomena that can arise, I think you’re pretty much done. They’re not going to show you anything about the evolutionary dynamics that drive carcinogenesis. They’re not going to let you explore the chemistry that might have given rise to the origin of life. They’re not going to let you model how opinions and behaviors cascade on social networks.

Topics like emergence are core to complexity theory, but CA can only illustrate that it exists, and it does so in such an abstract way that it doesn’t really translate into an understanding of how emergence is grounded in real world systems.

Wolfram’s problem, in my opinion, is that he was largely disconnected from the complex adaptive systems community, and for some reason didn’t realize we had largely moved on. I don’t know anyone in the CAS community that thought his work was groundbreaking.

I do have to say that Robert Sapolsky seems to have found his work interesting, and I am very deeply interested in Sapolsky’s work. But he’s a neurobiologist, not a complexity scientist, and he doesn’t draw a concrete connection between Wolfram’s work and his own, other than the generic connection that complex systems can arise from simple rules. That’s something we’ve known since Conway and Lorenz.

My mind is open to counter arguments, but that was my impression and as far as I could tell, the same was true of my colleagues. I think that the general academic reception to his book bears this analysis out. It’s like if someone wrote a comprehensive book about all kinds of Prisoner’s Dilemma models long after we’ve moved on from PD to modeling more complex and accurate depictions of cooperative versus competing interactions. Students should absolutely study PD, and they should study CA. It’s just not something you want to hang your academic hat on at this point.

Mathematica, on the other hand, is pretty neat.

My favorite example so far was when a person asked a car dealer chatbot intended to talk to customers about their cars to write a python script, and it complied.

He absolutely did not invent CA. His book was published well after it had become an established modeling technique. Conway’s game of life was published in 1970. Complexity theory modeling had moved well past CA by the time Wolfram’s book came out, to the point that most of us didn’t know why he bothered writing it, much less thought it would revolutionize science.

By whom?

Do you think the Palestinians are going to fire on aid vessels? Do you think Israelis will fire on American military vessels?

Return it as it was shipped with a hardware bug.

Those lines go up graphs taken from scientific publications with hundreds of supporting data analytics and citations to similar articles are completely destroyed by this meme showing that it still got cold somewhere.

“No stupid questions” is intended to be a topic, not a challenge.

The Mandarin from Iron Man 3 was obviously Jack Dorsey. He would win by selling his criminal gang for more than it was worth to someone stupid enough not only to buy it but to then crater its value by 90% in the first year, and use that money to found a competitor.