It's a very Roddenberry design.
It is an online poll. You also have to consider that some people don't care/want to be funny, and so either choose randomly, or choose the most nonsensical answer.
I thought that this is just confirmation of other studies? We knew that it exacerbates underlying mental conditions, especially in those underage.
It pretty much is, though I think this study is unusual in that it suggests that the effect may be independent of socioeconomic factors.
Though the authors do admit that there may be a bidirectional link at play, which is quite interesting, and relatively novel, off the top of my head. You're at higher risk for schizophrenia or psychosis if you use marijuana, but you're also more likely to use marijuana if you're at higher risk for schizophrenia or psychosis. A lot of prior studies established the links individually, but didn't combine them.
I don't think I have met the crowd you refer to.
There are a few dotted throughout this thread, laying the blame on other things than the hasis.
They did. One of the variables they statistically controlled for in the study is the "neighbourhood deprivation index", which represents socio-economic living factors.
It's pretty difficult for it to go wrong in a way that isn't just nothing happening.
The eyes don't just grow randomly, you need to give the brain blob a chemical signal that grows eyes in-utero to make the eyes grow.
There's also the question of why would it experience horror? It's not exactly in pain, and they way they make the eyes grow is just to add the hormone signal that makes eyes grow when developing.
So from its perspective, it just got told to make eyes, so it has rudimentary eyes now. Hardly the most horrifying existence.
I wonder if they do. That seems like a lot of effort to go to for the average person for a scammer.
It seems easier to have a generic voice, rely on the fact that phone audio quality isn't great to bridge the gap, and use a shotgun approach.
Some places do, since there were a few high profile attacks, but they were nearly all targeting organisations by pretending to be the CEO or something.
I don't understand the point of sending the original e-mail. Okay, you want to thank the person who helped invent UTF-8, I get that much, but why would anyone feel appreciated in getting an e-mail written solely/mostly by a computer?
It's like sending a touching birthday card to your friends, but instead of writing something, you just bought a stamp with a feel-good sentence on it, and plonked that on.
The parallels between Musk and Stark seemed perfect on paper. Both are billionaire tech innovators with a flair for the dramatic and dreams of changing the world.
They're not, though. Stark is a rare engineering powerhouse who personally pushed past a lot of engineering boundaries, and Musk is an investor/programmer who mostly puts his name on existing things.
I might change my mind if Musk personally invents AGI, nanobots, and a previously-unknown clean energy source capable of powering a 1/3rd of NYC with a room no larger than a foyer, like Stark did, but I'm not holding out much by way of hopes.
You say that like A/S/L wasn't a thing back in the day.
Is it reasonable for them to keep their own local snapshots?
That's not a trivial amount of work and data, particularly it it's multimedia.