The fundamental difference to me, which makes me not see “a website with extensive docs and a download button” as marketing, is whether you need to seek it out or not.

If I need to seek it out myself, it’s not marketing, it’s simply “providing solid information” and “making your product accessible”, which is a whole different ballgame from “shoving your shit into peoples face in the hope that they’ll give you money”.

I think there’s a substantial difference between “supplying information about a product without shoving it in people’s face”, and what most people associate with “marketing”.

If a company putting up neutral, verifiable information about their product on their own webpage where I can find it by searching for something I’m looking for after reflexively scrolling past the ads counts as marketing, then yes, I “fall for marketing” all the time. However, what I typically associate with “marketing” involves me somehow being fed information about a product without seeking it out. Usually when that happens, I’ll actively look somewhere else.

Recalling the videos of a single male lion pretty much ripping apart a pack of hyenas… Tigers are even bigger and stronger than lions, and wolves don’t have anywhere near the bite force of a hyena. I think you’d need a lot more than three.

Ref. the famous Ken Thompson hack. At some point you’re forced to trust someone.

“Not a marketing company” as in their business model is not centred around shoving ads in your face for money is how I read it.

Oh absolutely. As with all other infrastructure, there is a cost to be paid. However, when you look at an average to small river, even routing 10 % of the water via an osmosis plant before passing it to the sea is an absolutely massive volume. There’s also the point that you don’t want to build these things in large, meandering, flat river deltas. You want a large salinity gradient, which means relatively small, fast-running fresh water meeting the ocean more “suddenly” than what you get in a classical river delta is the optimal source here.

Because osmotic power has enormous potential in the sense that millions of cubic meters of fresh water is running into oceans all over the world every minute. If we’re able to get even a low-efficiency method of using the salinity gradient to generate power working then every place a river meets the sea is essentially an unlimited (albeit low-yield) power source.

This is tech that doesn’t rely on elevation (like hydropower) or weather conditions (like wind/solar) it’s stable and in principle possible to set up at pretty much any river outlet, which is great!

Exactly this. The whole premise of the tax system is based around the historically correct idea that you need to physically move goods in order to sell them, or physically be somewhere to sell services.

Companies like google are making buckets of money all over the world, and don’t need to tax a dime most places, because they have no physical presence there. This makes it pretty much impossible to compete with the international behemoths, because they have access to a munch of tax-free revenue, while a startup will typically be centred around wherever they’re based, where they also need to pay taxes.

I had fantasies about women initiating affection, taking active roles during intimacy, and expressing a primal hunger to take the reins

In my personal experience, this is pretty much the norm. Women can have just as much sex drive as men, and can express it just as “aggressively”. In every relationship I’ve had, there are times where I’ll initiate, times where she’ll initiate, and times where we’ll both look at each other with a “Yes. Right now.” look. Note that I’ve never been into any BDSM or other “exciting” kink stuff, I’m just talking about initiative and passionately expressing that “I want you” feeling.

Of course, this is a side of women you won’t see until you get with someone that both wants you and feels comfortable enough you to express it.

So long story short: What you’re looking for is pretty much the norm as far as I can tell.

It’s not the norm to publish alone, but it’s not really uncommon either. Peer review is conducted when you publish, regardless of how many authors are listed on the article. The reviewers are typically selected by the journal, and are anonymous to the person submitting the paper.

It differs per community.

Good point, I’ll moderate myself and just state that I’ve never experienced it being a hard requirement in my field.

No it’s not. I have both published in a variety of scientific journals, reviewed for a couple journals, and turned down reviews for a couple journals.

No journal checks your “review history” before allowing you to publish. However, if you consistently turn down reviews from a journal, the editor is likely going to get annoyed and you will probably have a harder time publishing in that journal in the future.

Yep. At that point, why even bother taking the review? You’re not forced to do reviews. Never taking any is likely to negatively impact your career, but still… just decline the review if you’re going to use a LLM for it anyway. Have some dignity.

There are no “accidents” with firearms, there can only be negligence.

Look, I’ve been in the army, I know firearm safety, and I strongly disagree. People can slip and fall, or inexplicably fumble and drop stuff. People with no history of it can suddenly have seizures or heart failure that causes them to seize up or collapse. None of these are common, but all can occur. If you happen to be carrying a loaded firearm when it happens, that firearm can go off. Even if you have the safety in place. Shit can malfunction.

Regardless, if I get shot, the question of whether it was intentional, an accident, or due to negligence is really a secondary matter. The primary issue is that I just got shot, and that can have irreversible consequences.

My point is that if I happen to get shot, I really don’t care how statistically unlikely it was to happen in the way it did. The most effective way to prevent firearm injuries/deaths is to keep firearms away from people that don’t strictly need them.

The issue I see with the logic that “Everyone should have the right to carry a gun everywhere, until their negligence causes harm” is the massive consequence of someone messing up with a gun.

Guns are so extremely lethal that when accidents happen (they will eventually happen), it is likely to result in death or disability. It seems pretty clear to me that society overall is safer for everyone the fewer guns there are around. It doesn’t really matter if the person that shot me due to negligence loses their license, I’ve already been shot, and they shouldn’t have had a gun in the first place.

Knives and guns aren’t at all comparable weapons. One allows the user to quickly kill multiple people at ranges up to several hundred meters, the other gives the user a significant advantage (edge) in melee combat against an unarmed/unarmoured opponent.

The dream here, in FOSS terms, is that governments see the massive potential value in using FOSS, and start actively contributing to it.

Imagine if the German or Danish government puts the people on their IT payroll (who are now maintaining Microsoft systems) to maintain FOSS systems. This would be a huge benefit for everyone, if enough big actors do it, it may be what pushes stuff like Microsoft into being a niche service.

I have three stores within 200 m, one of which is open 24/7, another of which has a massive selection in fresh cheese, meats, fish, and baking goods.

Sorry, but I was in the US last summer, and I really feel bad for you guys regarding the whole food and walk-/bikeability situation.

You don’t need to pretend education was perfect before in order to realise that it’s getting worse and try to reverse the trend.

You also don’t need to pretend it was perfect before in order to see that the proliferation of LLM’s is harming education.

This doesn’t work after the pdf reaches a cert max size.