I like greebles because space is a vacuum and there’s no drag. Too many series have spaceships that are basically fighter jets in space. Greebles are common on things like Star Destroyers (which are really more battleships than destroyers) and on Star Trek ships. But, the Star Wars ships look too much like the ships you’d find on water. The Star Trek ships at least have a unique look with their warp nacelles. But, the skin of the ships is too smooth. A real ship would probably be more like the ISS than the Space Shuttle, something that never has to worry about air resistance.

The Expanse is one of the few that has reasonable space-shippy type ships. But, even then, they imagine a kind of conflict with ships boosting around at high G. Real space combat would probably mostly be long-range sniping rather than manoeuvring. There’s nothing at all to hide behind in space. If you can be spotted thousands of km away, why would there be any high-G maneuvers at all? Also, why use chemically-propelled kinetic slugs rather than lasers or particle cannons or something. Space is huge and speeds will be vast. Hitting something with a bullet sounds incredibly hard compared to just using a beam of light.

I may be an audience of 1, but I want some near future hard sci-fi combat without FTL travel but with in-system battles.

I don’t think so. Good things can’t happen because of human nature: making good things happen involves groups making decisions, and in every group there are bound to be some assholes because that’s human nature, that limits the kinds of good things that can happen.

And that they’ve observed that once groups reach a certain size, it’s inevitable that the group contains at least one asshole.

It’s like the fable of the scorpion and the frog. It doesn’t mean that it’s impossible to cross the river. It just means that you need a more complex plan than just carrying the scorpion across on your back.

It’s the nature of humanity that in any reasonably sized group, there are always a few assholes.

There was cooperation, sure. There was also a lot of killing.

It’s not just human nature, even chimps kill chimps from other groups who stray into the wrong territory.

Is there anything about dead languages that is different from current languages?

On one hand, there shouldn’t be. Anatomy hasn’t changed. The language didn’t “evolve” to something better, it’s just that people stopped speaking it.

OTOH, I know that certain things have changed about languages in living memory. For example, the loss of thee / thou in English, Mexican Spanish dropping “vos”, and in French using “tu” more often than the more formal “vous”.

What I hate is when I’m searching for a word in another language I speak and it comes to me, but it’s just the English word said with a different accent, so I don’t trust it, but it’s actually right.

Probably near zero. Any ad that slips through is noticeable and it’s a company I especially hate, and am less likely to ever do business with.

This sounds like something the advertising world would want you to believe. It’s in their interest to keep the public thinking that advertising works. It’s good for their bottom line if people believe that even if you don’t act on an ad immediately it’s something that eventually nudges you.

Maybe that’s not true. Maybe, in fact, sometimes advertising is a net negative because you’re bombarded so often with an ad that you come to resent the company pushing it. I don’t know what Raycon is, but based on what you’ve said I’m also not interested in ever giving them money. So, the worst case for the advertiser is that not only do their ads reduce sales from people who are reached by those ads, they also reduce sales in anybody those people talk to.

The idea that advertisers’ psychological manipulation just works on people needs to die and stay dead. If you saw it, it had an effect on you, and if that effect is negative then it’s obviously worse than nothing.

Sure, they’re reasonable requests. They’re things that he should have looked at before letting spicy autocomplete loose on production.

If I put a supposedly trained monkey into a tractor’s cabin and had it try to do farm work, I don’t think people should be listening to my ideas about what kinds of skills monkeys should be taught before they’re assigned farm work. I think people should be laughing at me and calling me an idiot for assuming a monkey could do farm work.

Crane bullet points five things that need to change as the AI industry scales faster than it builds a worthwhile safety architecture. Specifics he calls for include; stricter confirmations, scopable API tokens, proper backups, simple recovery procedures, and AI agents existing within proper guardrails.

“I hooked up spicy autocomplete to our production systems and it nuked them. What have I learned from this? Here are some bullet points for how the spicy autocomplete industry needs to do better.”

Mars may have “river deltas”, but without the river.

Mars is a world. It is a place. It has biomes as varied and unique as those of Earth.

Suuure. A biome is a geographical region with a specific climate, flora and fauna. Mars doesn’t have much climate because it has very little atmosphere, and it has no flora or fauna. There’s no way in hell that it has biomes as varied as earth.

That depends on the wording.

Interesting that you use the word “chord”, because guitarists and piano players have been remembering chords forever based on the position of their hands, not based on some letters and numbers. Your version isn’t more easily memorized, it’s just different.

Which is something you have to memorize. Do you honestly think that that is somehow easier to memorize than say “Ctrl-Shift-5”?

Rather than memorizing ctrl+shift+alt-style keybinds, you decompose stuff into chainable actions.

By memorizing something else that’s equally or more obscure.

Can you imagine? A modern day oracle. Scientists would be lining up to ask questions about how the world worked and everything you said would be true.

It would be great for just confirming things that science suspected were true. Like, all the rare particles they’re trying to find with the Large Hadron Collider. They could just ask the oracle and learn all the particles they were missing, along with all the important data about them.

Best of all, if you couldn’t lie, and couldn’t be wrong (even if you didn’t know the answer) it could be used to “discover” things without ever having to go down blind alleys, or waste time with research that won’t bear fruit. For example, you could ask “is it possible for something like a spaceship to move faster than the speed of light?” If the answer is no, then you can write off working on that forever. If it’s yes, you could progressively ask questions to learn the theory you’d need to know to build a FTL ship. It could also finally put to bed whether time travel is possible, and how the paradoxes involved are resolved.

If FTL travel is possible, you could just ask the oracle where all the various aliens are, making it really easy to contact them (plus the oracle can tell you if it’s unsafe to contact them).

Also, since it was obviously possible to transform someone into an oracle, it should be possible to do that again. You can just ask the oracle the right questions needed to create a second, third, tenth, 1000th oracle. That way the one oracle isn’t always so busy, and if the first oracle dies, there are still many more.

The original version of the comment said, I believe “So there is precedence”. That could be fixed as “there is a precedent” or “there are precedents”. I suggested “precedents” because it seems like OP used the homophone for that one. So, “precedents” is correct, “precedence” is not.

There was fuck all need for that. I actually mostly backed you up in another comment.

Bruh, you said “Bruh. If you’re going to correct, be sure you’re correct.”, when I was correct and OP was incorrect.

Note that the original has been edited. It used to say “precedence”.

Before OP edited the comment it used “precedence”. They mean different things.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/usage-of-precedent-vs-precedence

https://www.grammar-monster.com/easily_confused/precedence_precedent.htm

https://languagetool.org/insights/post/precedence-or-precedent/

https://www.thoughtco.com/precedence-precedents-and-presidents-1689468

What’s next, are you going to claim “presidents” is another alternative spelling that means the same thing?