WoodScientist

Why do AI bros have such a rapist attitude?

Your AI code is so great? Fine. If you’re that great at programming now, create AI-specific coding sites and repositories. Why would you want the repositories of human-made code slowing you down?

I bet if you could somehow actually assess it accurately, you would find that the rate of sexual predators among the AI bros is vastly greater than among the regular male population. Both have a problem understanding consent.

I mean, they were evolved from hadrosaurs, and those only evolved in the late Cretaceous. The Voth would have had to be there at least within a few million years of the end.

Yeah that is the thing. Just because you know that the planet would eventually be destroyed, doesn’t mean you know that this is the particular moment it was supposed to happen. It could have happened in some unrelated event 45 million years ago instead of 65.

You know, they really missed an opportunity here. Because this was a bootstrap paradox, there’s nothing they could really do to mess up the timeline. Whatever they make happen was already going to have happened.

What I’m trying to say is, they should have adopted a pet raptor, taken it back to the future with them, and just had it as a regular presence on screen for the rest of the series! 😂

My guess is the away scene was going to be a lot different. My reason for thinking this is that oddly incongruent end sequence. They had that long CGI sequence at the end, after the entire plot of the episode has finished, where the camera does an extended flyaround on the Cretaceous Earth. CGI isn’t cheap. Someone had to animate all that. That sequence really screamed, “shit. We spent all this money on these dinosaur animations. But now the script’s changed, so we can’t use even half of it. I know! Let’s add an inspiring sequence at the end!”

Yeah, and the problem is if you define “pain” too loosely, you’ll end up concluding plants feel pain. A Venus fly trap can close in response to an insect landing on it. That’s a response to a stimulus. Some plants release chemicals in response to damage or exhibit other responses that could be defined as pain.

You have to be really careful when using “the ability to feel pain” as a litmus test for the ethics of eating a particular organism. If you define it too tightly, you’ll conclude that it would be morally OK to eat a Neanderthal (something clearly conscious but also not human.) Too loosely, and you’ll conclude the only moral choice is starvation.

What if it was primarily from the perspective of the new Lower Deckers?

Fuck it. Let’s take this in a strange direction.

Give me Star Trek HGN. It’s a live show featuring a guy in full Ferengi make up hawking actual items you can buy, each either an actual piece of Trek merchandise or some oddity or curio that can be passed off as some interstellar artifact.

Eh, it’s laudable.

Image

I mean, eventually, he can improve by repetition if nothing else. I mean, wasn’t he objectively one of the most experienced executioners in modern history?

There’s an old saying. “Anyone can build a bridge that stands up. It takes an engineer to design a bridge that will barely stand up.”

Some may say that the hangman was clearly incompetent. Others might say he was actually the most skilled at his craft on this Earth, simply….optimizing for a different variable.

It’s not inefficient, it’s extraordinarily efficient.

There are efficiencies and then there are relative efficiencies. You could design a combustion engine that used its intake air very efficiently, but as our supply of atmospheric oxygen is effectively limitless, it would be completely irrelevant. No one is ever going to care how efficient their car is at managing its oxygen use.

Posting images of text is not cheap in terms of computer resources, but it’s extraordinarily efficient in terms of human time. A quick screen shot, a box to select, and you’re done. Sure, you could just as quickly copy the text of a tweet or other message, but you would also be cutting out important details. If you want to include the source’s username, the site it came from, the profile picture, etc., each of these has to be gathered separately. Then they have to be pasted into a text entry box, as well as any images. Oh, and it won’t actually end up being formatted like it was on the original site.

People post text as images for the exact same reason we invented computers in the first place - human convenience and time savings. If you want to post text that preserves its original context and source, it is almost always easier to just post a screen shot than it is to manually copy all that information over piecemeal. Yes, posting the text directly is more resource efficient, but that’s pretty irrelevant in 2026. You do have points on the translation though. And of course it does make it harder for screen readers.

But there’s your answer. Convenience.

Why the change? August 6, 1945.