Yeah, you are right.

I think it’s the Ge’ez script used in Ethiopian.

At home I can deal with it (and have done). Hotels are a different story and they don’t all have shower heads you can reposition. I’ve even been in ones where the gap between my head and the ceiling would not fit a showerhead between.

Same with sinks and work surfaces. If I control the space you can bet it’s all comfortable for me, but I don’t always had that luxury.

That isn’t even the worst thing. Sinks are. Especially those big, deep professional ones where the bottom is somewhere south of your knees. But even ordinary sinks are almost always too low to be comfortable and you have to do this little half stoop/lean to use them properly.

Also showers in hotels. The controls are low, and sometimes the showerhead is at or bellow shoulder height.

Squeezing into an airline seat is comparatively fine, and I tend not to have to worry about the guy in front reclining because they physically can’t. And the look of fury dying in the eyes of the chap who just turned round to complain about it is a memory that warms me to this day.

“Hydrogen powered” generally means burning hydrogen in oxygen to make water: 2(HH) + OO -> 2(HHO). To run a car on water as you say is a lot like trying to make a fire out of ash, rather than wood. You can’t burn the ash because it has already been burned.

So you are at about an A1 and want to get up to around a B1? I don’t like saying impossible but a month is not long at all. If you can already read it you might do better, just focus on the reading and writing skills, get some sample papers if you can.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_European_Framework_of_Reference_for_Languages?wprov=sfla1

You are probably going to want a tutor that offers an intensive class, that can be done in a month, but you are still going to be looking at 50+ hours.

Do you know what level the exam is expecting?

Ship mostly yes under normal conditions.

Submarines on the other hand…

We don’t, fundamentally. All we can do is construct models and see if they match our observations. How do we know the world exists beyond our sensation of it? That could be an illusion too.

The base assumption that we work on is that the universe is the same here as it is there. Same rules, same interactions. We work out what we should be able to see and then go looking for it, so far that has worked.

As an example, we can look at some hydrogen in a lab and see what kinds of light it absorbs, we can then look at the sun and see if it is absorbing the same light, we can then look at another star and see that it two is absorbing the same light. So we can be confident that the hydrogen in our lab is like the hydrogen in the sun, and that the distant star is made of the same stuff as our sun. We can do wlthis with each element. We can look at the motion of planets around the sun, and we can look at the motion of stars around the center of the galaxy and see that they follow the same patterns.

It’s like trying to work out what is going on in the next room by listening, you can get a good idea, but it could be an empty room with a radio.

sapience equivelent of a chinese room

A p-zombie I think.

So it looks like it’s already been formatted to allow you to just get the whole thing in one go (the megamanga). It would be just a case of making sure everything is saved in some meaningful order. Are the alternate universe things ever more than one link deep or are they more of a bonus panel?

It’s a bit left-field for this community but you might actually get some reasonable milage out of contacting the artist and asking for their help in archiving it. This isn’t corporate art-product as far as I can tell so something might be arranged that is more efficient than just sending a scraper out to lift it.

A plastic ice scraper will help get the bulk off, then you can get a variety of solvents for removing any residue. If it is metal then it should be fine with most solvents but check the instructions and do a test patch somewhere discreet to be sure.

The specifics can be argued, (and have been, and will be). The Buddha said that evil action is rooted in greed, hatred, and delusion. He said he understood this when he saw the true nature of reality.

Kant said “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” And says this is evident if you reason through things.

Moses had a great big list of rules that he said the creator of the universe told to him.

Governments establish laws based on the interests of those in power, they say to obey the law is right and to disobey is wrong and they will use violence to punish those that disobey.

These are just some examples, there are loads more including utilitarianism, virtue ethics, various other religions and customary systems.

Are there any banks that don’t support the fossil fuel industry?

I think I the difference is that I find ‘human’ to be too narrow a term, I want to extend basic rights to all things that can experience suffering. I worry that such an experience is part and parcel with general intelligence and that we will end up hurting something that can feel because we consider it a tool rather than a being. Furthermore I think the onus must be on the creators to show that their AGI is actually a p-zombie. I appreciate that this might be an impossible standard, after all, you can only really take it on faith that I am not one myself, but I think I’d rather see a p-zombie go free than accidently cause undue suffering to something that can feel it.

Hypotheticals are pretty important right now I think. This kind of tech is very rapidly going from science fiction to real and I think we should try and stay ahead of it conceptually.

I’m not sure that AGI is necessary to achieve post-labour, a suite of narrow-ai empowered tools would be preferable.

By way of analogy, you could take a human child and fit them with electrodes to trigger certain pleasure responses and connect that to a machine that sends the reward signal when they perfectly pick an Amazon order. I think we would both find this pretty horrific. The question is, is it only wrong because the child is human? And if so, what is special about humans?

I think it is short sighted not to at least investigate if we should.

If an AGI is operating on a human level, and we have reason to believe it is a sentient entity which experiences reality then we should. I also think it is in our interest to treat them well, and I worry that we are going to create a sentient lifeform and do a lot of evil to it before we realise that we have.

As others have mentioned, we are already kind of there. I can fully understand how someone could fall in love with such an entity, plenty of people have fallen in love with people in chat rooms after all, and not all of those people have been real.

As for how I feel about it, it is going to depend on the nature of the AI. A childish AI or an especially subservient one is going to be creepy. One that can present as an adult of sufficient intelligence, less of a problem. Probably the equivalent of paid for dates? Not ideal but I can understand why someone might choose to do it. Therapy would likely be a better use of their time and money.

If we get actual human scale AGI then I think the point is moot, unless the AI is somehow compelled to face the relationship. At that point however we are talking about things like slavery.

Pretty much. I have seen a few services pop up recently that will do this for you, but that costs money, and is of course including a third party. This is why prevention is largely better than cure.

Depending on where you live (and therefore what legal protections you have) you can demand your details. In the UK this is the right of access and is exerted by making a subject access request (SAR).