I actually wonder how long it would take to notice if all your mRNA stopped working.

I don't think neuron action potentials rely directly on mRNA, so I think you'd be able to keep thinking for a bit, and probably moving your muscles too. The closest comparable thing is people that received massive radiation doses (can't make new RNA out of shredded DNA) and in those cases it takes a bit before you start melting.

Ah, that makes sense, thanks.

I mean, the gravitational gradient is much higher. To me this kind of sounds like saying "there's nothing that special about a 10 watt laser, an LED lightbulb puts out the same amount of light", but a 10 watt laser is enough to instantly and permanently blind you.

Its true that there's nothing that special about orbiting a black hole, but I think its not really logically inconsistent (inasmuch as a superhero can be logically consistent) to say "even if superman could survive dipping into a sun he probably wouldn't be too happy if he stuck his arm into an event horizon".

Logistics is 4.8%

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590174524001399

How does a 66% reduction in co2 emitted per fuel gallon used barely help

Where does this figure come from? Is this in regards to e70 / e90 fuel or normal e10?

For the latter, I'm pretty sure that's impossible.

It's a failure of our education systems that people don't know what a computer is, something they interact with every day.

While the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis might be bunk, I'm convinced that if you go up one level in language structure there is a version of it that is true. That is treating words as if they don't need a consistent definition melts your brain. For the same reason that explaining a problem to someone else helps you solve it, doing the opposite and untethering your thoughts from self-consistant explanations stops you from explaining them even to yourself, and therefore harms your ability to think.

I wonder if this plays some part in how ChatGPT use apparently makes people dumber, that it could be not only because they become accustomed to not having to think, but because they become conditioned to accept text that is essentially void of consistent meaning.

Is a neural network that analyzes x-rays before handing them to a doctor AI? I would say no.

The term "AI" is already pretty fuzzy even in the technical sense, but if that's how you're using it then it doesn't mean anything at all.

However, this fuckin’ half-in/half-out state has become the engine of a manifold of security issues, primarily bc nobody but nerds or industry specialists knows that much about it yet. That has led to rushed, busy, or just plain lazy devs and engineers to either keep IPv6 sockets listening, unguarded, or to just block them outright and redirect traffic to IPv4 anyway.

Its kind of interesting to me how conservative the IT industry is with stuff like this.

The industry loves to say "move fast and break things" or "innovate and disrupt", but that generally only applies to things that can be shat out in a two week long Python project (or shat out in 2 weeks after publicly funded universities spent years figuring out the algorithm for you). For anything foundational, like CPU architecture, operating systems, or the basic assumptions about how UI should work, they're terrified of change.

There are actually some fossils of dinosaur mummies, a rare preservation of a rare preservation. For some species these give us direct evidence of their physical appearance beyond their bone structure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_mummy

This is more psychotic than any of the dialogue in American Psycho.

It needs a port that you can attach your bag of caffeinated noodles to.

I don't think I would have brought a new person into the world during any of the other time periods you mention either.