While that is true, it does not invalidate the poster’s point. All of the effects of drugs are just “effects”. They could just as easily market cough syrup as a sleep aid with the “side effect” that it suppresses coughing.

The difference in definition in this context is simply that “drug uses” is the list of its effects that they were going for, and “side effects” are a list of effects that they were not. Its entirely a man made distinction. Extend that reasoning to the “installing” vs. “side loading” discussion to see the poster’s point.

I believe him to be suggesting that “side loading” is a very different word for “installing” that can be loaded by PR people to shift public opinion against the practice. Whether or not they are doing that I can’t say myself, but that appears to be the point being made.

They could just as easily have coined it “direct installing” or “USB installing”, but they didn’t even though those terms are more descriptive. Draw from that whatever you will.

I’m sure some of them are pieholes.

I believe that the bad behavior of corporate interests is often one of the key contributors to these financial bubbles in every sector where they appear.

To say that some of the bad things about this particular financial bubble are because of a bunch of companies being irresponsible and/or unethical seems not to acknowledge that one is primarily caused by the other.

Its not so much of an argument as a concern. It puts an extreme amount of the country’s economic activity directly in the hands of the government. We see globally that governments can quickly change their motivations.

The same rope that can be used to help people out of a hole can be used to tie them up.

I can’t shake the feeling that all this talk of UBI and other social safety nets that are meant to support the majority of the populace after some notional post-work future society ignore a really big elephant in the room:

If most people are solely reliant on the good grace of a single entity, the government, for their whole means of survival, their entire existence is at the pleasure of that government. The populace becomes completely beholden to them, not the other way around.

The whole idea feels suspiciously like a trap set by bad actors with a long-term plan to steal the government from the governed.

It didn’t seem at all like an argument to me or an attempt by the OP to persuade anyone of anything. I read it as a description of their thought process as to how they arrived at the conclusions they did in their own life.

While some might find that enlightening if open to it or threatening if they disagree, it didn’t strike me as an attempt to talk me into their (non)religion.

Based on his description, it doesn’t have to have an interaction. But, if it doesn’t interact with the material world at all, then there could be no connection or interaction at all between a body and a spirit. That means that you could not ever see or feel spirits in any capacity, and a physical human could not have a soul “attached” to it or associated with it in any way, even if the soul did exist.

If there were no interaction at all, it could never be detected and might as well not exist to us. If there were an interaction, you would expect to be able to detect evidence of it or at least one of its side-effects to indicate that something is there.

He is not saying that we’re so awesome that we surely would see something if it was there, mind you. He’s saying that what we can see already pretty well covers what is happening, so any other phenomena we want to say are happening are not detectable by any means yet devised and our world model works without the need for an outside unknown variable like spirits or souls to make the math add up.

Philosophically speaking, a phenomenon that is completely undetectable and does not influence or interact with anything in any way can be argued to be not happening, full stop. Things in this category fall into the realm of belief/faith, because that’s the only realm things that can’t be measured can exist in.

It will take at least until they take a wholly different approach to “AI”. Until they make something that has some concept of what it is saying, you’ll continue to get things much like you get today–a probability-based response that amounts to a series of symbols it thinks are a good reply to the series of symbols you entered. It has no way to validate itself nor even a concept of validation of output, so its validity will always be in question and the complexity of what it can do limited.

The whole “hitting pedestrians is worth points” trope originated from Death Race 2000, I think. Still, yeah! Weird old movie.