Morally: never. It's built off stolen property and destroys the world with its ecological consequences.

Practically: as a placeholder. A real human will always outperform an AI, but if the intent is not quality but to just get the gist across, then it works in a pinch.

To be clear, it's not just the quality of the final product that matters. An AI-generated product is unmaintainable and uneditable. You can't make variations of a generated product. It's technical debt at its most fundamental

I'm not saying that what you've said is intrinsically problematic. I've said variations of "baby [object]" as well, there's nothing wrong with that. The issue is that context matters, and in this context it's condescending in a way that prevents open discussion.

Any reasonable person would read what you wrote and interpret it as "do you think the show is bad, or are you inexperienced and like baby things?" In this specific case, I do happen to agree with your opinion on the material. But if there exists someone who does happen to like the show, they are now discouraged from commenting and sharing their opinions, because you have pre-emptively denigrated their views.

Starting a discussion (it's a discussion community, after all) requires more care than usual to ensure that you are fostering a fair and open discussion. With the way that the post is currently structured, I don't foresee a way that a fair and open discussion can be had.

His response was not condescending, it was a constructive critique and solid breakdown of why you sound condescending.

There are several things wrong with what you said:

1. You don't need to be serious to be condescending. On the contrary, your admittance that you view it as a joke is interpreted as a willingness to use "teenagers/young adults" as the butt of your jokes. Which is condescending.

2. I acknowledge that you did not intend to be consciously condescending. But even ignoring that you openly admitted to it (see point 1), that does not mean that other people won't see it that way. Just saying "I disagree with your opinion" doesn't automatically cause everyone else in the world to change their interpretation of your words. There is a reason we are telling you that this is a real interpretation of your words, and refusing to accept it also reflects negatively on you.

My advice: do what the other comment said. It's an easy edit, and we won't need to be having this conversation at all.

It was alright. Not bad, not great. But your post reads as unusually condescending in a way that prevents open discussion, so I'll have to downvote

You'll get banned anyways, regardless of karma. Remember that karma doesn't mean anything. It's just funny little internet numbers.

My advice: don't waste your effort.

For context: Ross Scott made a video explaining the situation. The Commission has been meeting with lobbyists frequently and had been essentially stonewalling the initiative for some time now. This was the expected outcome.

However, he still has the support of the European parliament, so they will seek to amend an existing law (which can be done through the Parliament), rather than create a new law (which must be done through the Commission). There is high confidence that this will happen, this path will just take longer

It's better to get whatever you need to be comfortable, and upgrade later when prices get more affordable. So, for instance, you can get a 64 gb now, then get a 64 gb later for a total of 128 gb. Though I think it'll really depend on exactly what you're doing - for me, I would consider even 64 gb to be insanely futureproof.

Yes, but anti-cheat is still one of the biggest pain points of someone who might want to switch over. And just telling people to give up on their favorite games isn't a real option.

We don't have to use it. But having the option - any option - is better than none at all.

Anon could have salvaged this if he didn't run away. It could have made for a killer party story

Explanation:

If you want to do gene editing, you'll need to get your gene into your cell. Viruses are really good at doing exactly that, so a lot of modern gene editing technology revolves around putting genes into modified viruses, then infecting your cells with those modified viruses.

As it turns out, a lot of cells also have a lot of anti-viral mechanisms. One of them is called the RNAi system. Basically, if the cell detects foreign DNA, the cell automatically assumes that that DNA is from a virus and shuts down any and all production of whatever gene happened to be in that DNA.

This can have amusing consequences, because if you manage to trick the cell into thinking that its own genes are a virus, you can effectively block the cell from expressing its own genes. This effect was discovered when scientists tried putting a purple gene into a flower, which inadvertently caused the flower to think that its own purple gene was a virus. The end result is that the flower turned white.

This effect turns out to be incredibly useful for scientific research, because it allows scientists to suppress any gene without needing to go through the hassle of gene editing the cell

Wording is funky. To clarify:

The rain smell is due to a compound called geosmin. The bacteria that produces it is Streptomyces.

When I taught microbiology lab, I would grow a petri dish of Streptomyces during one particular class and have the students smell it

X axis: the inappropriate to corporate axis

Y axis: the funny to tragic axis

6 is the inappropriate, funny number

7 is the corporate, funny number

9 is the inappropriate, tragic number

11 is the corporate, tragic number

Is my interpretation valid?

Searched it up cause I was curious too. It's the white tern, and according to Wikipedia, the egg does roll off frequently. The bird simply doesn't care and lays another egg

Translation appears accurate, but misses the cultural element. In my admittedly limited experience, this is pretty par for the course for Chinese humor. Compared to Western humor, Chinese humor is more brash and abrasive, and almost boastful when viewed from an outside perspective. I can definitely envision someone receiving that sort of response as a joke ("What, you didn't receive game of the year? Why did you even go?"). And it would certainly agree with my impression that he makes a lot of crude jokes on his social media that don't translate well into English (see: the IGN article on how the developers are sexist). It can really be quite difficult for inexperienced people to determine what statements are humorous and what statements are earnest, since the difference is often really subtle, even when read in the original language.

I'm not necessarily defending him, since these sorts of jokes do have a nugget of honesty to them, but my read is that he plays them up for humor.

Ukraine set a SMART goal.

• Specific - they intend to destroy an oil refinery with a missile
• Measurable - there are a countable number of oil refineries in Russia
• Actionable - sending a missile can destroy oil refineries
• Relevant - Russia having oil refineries is bad
• Time-oriented - Ukraine can launch missiles to destroy oil refineries any time

Just Stop Oil did not set a SMART goal.

• Specific - Unclear what they will throw onto which painting, and when they will throw it
• Measurable - How do they measure a successful tomato juice throw?
• Actionable - Anybody can throw tomato juice.
• Relevant - Unclear how throwing tomato juice onto paintings is relevant to climate change
• Time-oriented - has no plan for when to throw tomato juice

Make of this information what you will

Fun fact: someone actually did it

Portal! Chell may be silent, but it's directly stated that she got as far as she had due to sheer tenacity and resourcefulness

Also, Silksong, if you're willing to wait for its release in 2377 AD

Edit: here's some more (these are all fairly family-friendly):

*Celeste

*Crypt of the NecroDancer

*Spelunky 2

*A Hat in Time

*Slime Rancher

*Webbed

I'm going to need some source for this

Asking ChatGPT for advice about anything is generally a bad idea, even though it might feel like a good idea at the time. ChatGPT responds with what it thinks you want to hear, just phrased in a way that sounds like actual advice. And especially since ChatGPT only knows as much information as you are willing to tell it, its input data is often biased. It's like an r/relationshipadvice or r/AITA thread, but on steroids.

You think it's good advice because it's what you wanted to do to begin with, and it's phrased in a way that makes your decision seem like the wise choice. Really, though, sometimes you just need to hear the ugly truth that you're making a bad choice, and that's not something that ChatGPT is able to do.

Anyways, I'm not saying that bosses are good at giving advice, but I think ChatGPT is definitely not better at giving advice than bosses are.

A question that I'm an expert in!

I study circadian rhythms (the process that is responsible for getting us to sleep in the night). Specifically, how circadian rhythms influence how easily we catch diseases, but that part is less relevant to the question.

So since Earth rotates and has day/night cycles, life on Earth evolved to try to predict when the day and night comes. That's what circadian rhythms do. This is really important, since day and night aren't just associated with lightness/darkness. Day and night are associated with a ton of different environmental differences. For instance, it's colder at night, so animals need a way of keeping warm at night. There's more UV light at day, so animals need a way of resisting DNA damage in the day. There's some evidence that the bacteria in the air are different at day vs. at night, so animals will need to have different levels of immune system alertness.

We as humans live in artificial houses with artificial lighting, so we can lose track of why this is really important. But if you've ever went camping or tried to stay out at night you'll probably understand why it's really important for animals to be able to predict the time.

Circadian rhythms end up getting reinforced on a community level, since if it's easier to see in the day, an animal is more likely to forage in the day. Then predators will notice that prey is more plentiful in the day, so it will also be more likely for predators to hunt in the day as well.

Anyways, the end result of all of this is that animals have a huge evolutionary pressure to pick either the day or night to be their active period, which is the time where they look for food and in general just be awake. And whatever they don't pick, that's their rest period, the time where they sleep and recover.

But how do animals know that their circadian rhythms are predicting the correct time? Imagine a mouse in its burrow - it wouldn't be able to tell what time it is just by looking at the sky. And even just stepping out for a second to check would be very dangerous if it ended up being the wrong time. Animals need a way of reading what time it is when their out and about and then correcting their circadian rhythms if the rhythm is inaccurate. There's a lot of different measurements that animals use to read the time, but the key here is that the measurements that they pick must change significantly between day and night. In other words, it must be a very obvious signal, like "oh, I see this signal, so there is no doubt that the time is day."

Vast majority of the time, the most obvious signal ends up behind light. And it makes sense - if you see bright light, that is the clearest indication that it is day outside. So for many animals, light is the primary measure that animals use to read the time.

So to wrap back around to your question, it's not necessarily that light ruins sleep because evolution just decided to go "nae nae," it's because predicting time is incredibly important for keeping animals and humans alive, and up until very recently, light has simply been the easiest and best proxy for the time

And to answer your bonus question, yes, other animals have their sleep messed up by light too