You forgot to mention the Roman Empire

Credit scores didn’t exist but credit bureaus date back to the mid 1800s in the USA. Also, as others have mentioned creditors would do their due diligence and try to assert that you would be able to pay back your loans by doing many of the same things they do now.

This really isn’t some new, crazy concept like you’re making it out to be. The score has only simplified the process.

uh… that’s exactly how it worked. The Wikipedia page you linked mentions credit bureaus. If you go to that page you can see they were established in the USA by the mid 1800s. Yes, it was all done on paper. That’s how the world used to work.

You’re asking a question that nobody has an answer to.

It’s both unethical and illegal.

Many families have recessive fucked alleles that cause all kinds of problems. An allele is a variant of a gene. You need two copies of a recessive allele for that gene to be expressed (do something).

Every fucked allele the parents share has a 25% chance of being expressed in the child. The more DNA the parents share the more fucked alleles they share. Usually… sometimes the opposite happens and the number of bad alleles is reduced in the child. Inbreeding can lead to fucked animals and “perfect” ones. Weird stuff.

Now you might be thinking “why do families have so many fucked alleles?”

That’s a good question. The thing about carrying a single recessive, fucked allele is that it doesn’t do anything to you. Mutations happen all the time and so these alleles are floating around and multiplying constantly.

It’s only a problem on the odd chance that they get expressed which is most often when family members produce offspring.

So it’s worth noting that this is the type of thing that we can check for these days. In some cultures it’s acceptable to marry a cousin and I’ve heard that they check for any genetic issues before proceeding when they live in a first world country.

No… that’s the decision of company who doesn’t want to invest in a new platform. They’d rather disable the app than support the users there.

Yes! Now I get to continue enjoying the fruits of unpaid labor. Even better I’ll be able to complain about every niche issue I have without ever contributing anything. Woohoo!

That’s my point. If they believe the hardware will be successful they would want to release apps for it that give them the ability to capture and retain customers. As it stands Apple headset users can only really consume Apple content. So it’s much more likely they just don’t believe in the product not that they’re scared.

Your argument doesn’t make any sense. Spotify isn’t going to produce an AR headset and really doubt Netflix will either. It makes more sense for them to release apps for the device if they think it’s going to be successful.

Uh what? In what way would Spotify and Netflix be scared of this disruption?

Interesting, I’ve had the total opposite experience. GPT-4 is reasonable more often than not. I don’t find the “it’s sometimes wrong” argument very compelling because the same is true for 99% of other information sources. I’ve always had to use critical thinking when look for answers online anyway.

You have a brain right? If you ask it for low water pressure shaving tips I think it would be pretty easy to tell if it’s suggesting nonsense.

Indeed. Like many career stories from back then it sounds kinda lovely.

Lol he was nothing more than middle class. He also was telling the story from the perspective of “I understand how easy it was for me”. He was a really cool guy.

I remember talking to an older fella about his experience becoming a programmer back in the 60s (I think). He told me that he decided it was time to start a career so he went to a nearby IBM office and asked for a job. They gave him an aptitude test and then hired him the same day. He wrote code for their mainframes until he retired.

It exists but it’s an exaggeration. Most companies are not like that. I also had a job lined up before graduating with my bachelor’s. I live in California.

This has been said in the thread already but I want to try and boil it down a bit. Your question is about intuition vs evidence. Science used to involve a lot more intuition. Many things that the public believed to be true were just educated guesses with little evidence to back them up.

Over time we realized through research that a large number of these reasonable guesses were completely wrong. So now intuition in science has been largely limited to the hypothesis and the hypothesis is mostly worthless without evidence.

We’ve also seen in the modern day just how fucked up human intuition can be. We largely have intuition to thank for: flat earth, anti vax, snake oil, etc.

If I remember correctly the only massless particles that travel through space are photons. Photons are what make up light so to say they travel at that speed is a little redundant.

Maybe. Anybody who says no is forgetting that we still know very little about the universe. It’s possible that we’ll find a way to transmit data to other time periods.