It sounds like it was necessary for OP because their Gatorade consumption was too low.

As I understand from the other comments, it’s a place to put the dishes after they’ve been cleaned and ready for rinsing? The way I’ve always done it is I clean the largest vessel first, then everything goes into that vessel until it fills up, then do a round of rinsing. If I don’t have a large dirty vessel, I take out a large clean mixing bowl for this purpose.

I don’t think the Mona Lisa is a good comparison. When it comes to old paintings, there’s a lot of interesting stuff happening underneath the surface image that tell an interesting story. They can be analyzed to see all the mistakes that were corrected, or changes that were made to the painting. I believe it was also commonplace to reuse old canvases, so with the appropriate technology, you would in theory be able to look underneath and see everything that came before as well. So I can definitely see why that would be valuable.

Still don’t understand diamonds though.

I need the knife to cut food at my destination though

Anyone want to take a capsaicin pill for science?

It’s so weird to me that a diamond can possibly go for that much. I understand that this one was probably made a long time ago based on the way it was cut, but it’s not like we don’t have the means to create an exact replica of it. This thing is pure carbon. There aren’t even impurities to make it interesting.

I think what you’re observing is the interplay between two variables with opposing correlation with respect to wealth:

1. Having empathy
2. Ability to display empathy

Poorer people might have more empathy, but their ability to show it is inhibited because of lack of resources (time/energy/material) and lots of mental health issues that are a result of being poor. Wealthier people may have all the means to display empathy, but they’re less incentivized to do so. At some point in the middle, you get a sweet spot where there’s both sufficient desire and ability to do good.

Growing up, I didn’t like water either because I didn’t like the taste. No one around me could understand how I could dislike it because water supposedly tastes like nothing. BUT IT DOESN’T. WATER HAS FLAVOUR. Anyway, I later figured out that filtered tap water tastes a lot better than the bottled kind.

It’s the pen that writes history

I believe the main cost is in hosting all the videos. A lot of them are probably junk that were never meant to see the light of day. I certainly use it as an extra backup for many of my videos with no context and random UUID titles.

For everything else, a potential solution is to have everyone come in with their own videos hosted elsewhere and the platform just integrated with a bunch of APIs for fetching and serving those videos. For small time creators, the cost should be fairly low to none since a lot of platforms allow you to store a small number of files for free.

Is your opposition to AI in general or generative AI? Because there’s absolutely no need for generative AI here.

I won’t have an opportunity to watch a video for a while, so maybe the answer is clearer with that context, but I don’t have it right now.

If the purpose of the bot is to help you find people to interact with, I think so. In my case, I’ve already made the space, but there’s no one to interact with. I don’t know if it’s a matter of no one on Lemmy having the same interests or that they don’t know that the community exists. A bot/person to redirect people there would at least rule out the possibility of the latter.

One of the problems with Lemmy right now is that it’s hard to find people with similar interests to connect and exchange ideas with. It doesn’t need to be perfectly optimal, but an improvement would be nice.

Are there people who want to do it manually and capable of doing so? If so, that’ll be ideal, but otherwise, it’s a perfect use case for automation.

Yeah, but the last one you ordered is your last until you order another.

I see no indication that they missed the sarcasm.

I also think it’s lame

The “also” meaning that they believe you also think it’s lame.

Edit: Oh, I just realized the post-war suburbs are the walkable ones. That makes more sense.

To me that means an autonomous being that understands what it is.

A little thought experiment: How would you determine whether another human being understands what it is? What would that look like in a machine?

As far as I’m concerned, “intelligence” in the context of AI basically just means the ability to do things that we consider to be difficult. It’s both very hand-wavy and a constantly moving goalpost. So a hypothetical pacman ghost is intelligent before we’ve figured out how to do it. After it’s been figured out and implemented, it ceases to be intelligent but we continue to call it intelligent for historical reasons.

I guess I can’t really contest it if you say a cup of olive oil would keep you full. That’s not something I’m willing to try for myself. I’m curious about this butter trick you mention though. I can’t find anything about it.

Consider a steak, which is just fat and protein… it starts delicious and wonderful, but quite rapidly it loses its luster and by the end eating the last few pieces can be quite a chore… this is how all food should be, and it can be, in the absence of carbohydrates.

My stomach capacity for a good steak or plain rice is approximately the same for both as measured by Calorie content. Though, combing both does allow me to eat more in total, so I guess maybe that’s what you’re trying to say. In any case, I’m not saying you’re wrong on this point. My criticism was about your comment consisting of a bunch of disjoint statements under the guise of being supporting sentences.

There is truth in that protein has an important role in hunger signaling, but it’s not being well supported by the other claims you’re making.

over-eating fat or protein is very difficult - the body will simply be full

Fats are very easy to overeat though. I can chug a cup of olive oil in less than a minute and instantly meet my daily energy expenditure. I’ve never tried this myself because I would miss out on a lot of other nutrients, but I imagine I would be hungry again pretty soon afterwards.

With carbs, that drive blood glucose, and that drive insulin, eating anything will be used for anabolism (that is what insulin does)

Your body does a lot more with its energy than building new molecules. For example, ATP powers the movement of your muscles. So you could either consider ATP synthesis as anabolism, making this claim a non-sequitur (i.e. how does saying “carbs can be used to move muscle” support the claim of “low carbs will help you lose fat”?), or it’s not anabolism, in which case you’re just plain wrong.

Sadly calories are a useful lie, but not actually how the body works. Calories are how much energy is released in a tiny oven. The human body does not necessarily use everything that has a calorie attached to it.

No, we don’t use everything. But it is a useful way of measuring what we do use for the purposes of weight control. It’s trivial to verify for yourself. Just count the Calories in everything you eat and see that your weight gains and losses are very closely tied to that number. So it is indeed a “lie” in that sense that the number you see probably isn’t actually what your body is burning, and “useful” in the sense that it will tell you whether you’ll gain or lose weight. I assume that’s how you got to calling it a “useful lie”. I just don’t see how that justifies your stance that no one should have to count Calories.