ns1

Yes of course. Although it loses some of its shock factor once you hear a bit about measure theory

• !aviation@lemmy.zip
• !aviation@lemmy.world
• #aviation tag on mastodon

Who else is thinking of that one scene near the start of Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country?

Thanks very much for this response! Good information for people like me who are interested to read more.

I think the point I was trying to make is that there are multiple reasons instead of one, and none of them are simple or easy. Understanding how those six things happen is subtly different to asking why they happen, which might be why we've got such a range of comments here and why the scientists in the article couldn't agree on their answer.

In the informal sense that everything breaks eventually then yes. If you're talking strictly in terms of physics, humans increase entropy just by existing, by eating calories and generating body heat, and that would still be true if we didn't age.

Yes, I've heard similar things before and that's probably the closest thing to a true explanation. It's a purely genetic line of reasoning which raises a lot of questions though: What's the biological clock that controls the timing of when genes activate? Which/how many genes are responsible for aging and does everyone have all of them? Could animals be selectively bred for longevity indefinitely? Some of these questions might have partial answers already but I don't know them.

Thanks for the paper, it's interesting and I definitely couldn't follow the whole thing. It says at one point that the findings are consistent with the theory that organisms age to make way for their offspring. I've heard of the slightly different version where it's just random genes that don't have any benefit but the downside isn't bad enough for them to be selected against.

It's funny how everyone tends to assume that there is a very obvious and well-known reason why we age, and people are usually shocked to find out that, like the article demonstrates, ~~science kind of doesn't really know~~. We know a lot of the mechanisms of course and I'm sure any doctors here can explain them, but it's not like there's one simple and universal explanation.

Edit: some commenters have pointed out that aging is very well studied so I'm crossing out the part that could be misleading and will add only: it's complicated

Some people here can remember a time when most computers had just a keyboard and no mouse!

It exists! https://github.com/michelcrypt4d4mus/fedialgo_demo_app_foryoufeed

Not sure if this is what you found already, you should be able to log in to your usual instance then use it in the same browser without sending anyone your credentials. Or self host if you prefer.

Obligatory link to videos of a hedgehog haven on the fediverse: https://mastodon.social/@pgoodgame

I'd offer you a counterpoint (ignoring the issue with Lutris and AI for a minute):

If you choose not to judge your own actions by the expected consequences of those actions for everyone involved, then how exactly are you supposed to judge them? If you're following some rule that disagrees with the utilitarian view, then by definition it's a rule that in your own opinion leads to a worse outcome for everyone.

It's of course completely fine to not be utilitarian, but trying to claim that all utilitarians are either stupid or evil is just incorrect.

Good news but it's depressing and honestly shameful that it has taken so long. In any sane world this would have happened at least 50 years ago.

also, wtaf:

The BBC understands ministers have offered the Conservatives the chance to retain 15 hereditary members of the House of Lords as life peers.