I think the point is that it’s difficult to attribute that to communism in any meaningful way where you’re comparing it to non-communism. Like if those 100 million people would have died anyway, how to do you say ‘it was communism that did it’ since maybe more would have died under the next most likely form of government that would have been in it’s place. How many people have died for Democracy, assuming that both world wars and countless other ones were fought to defend it.

It’s not cheating, especially if it’s anonymous. More like the same lines of watching porn, just a more personal version.

If you were sending them to someone for some other reason it would be closer to cheating.

They’re not set up by the prison, you still have to arrange the visitor yourself. If you can manage that on death row, one might assume you could do just as well outside of prison?

Seems like your biggest hang up is the word ‘contract’, which you have assigned a lot of concrete properties to. Would it be easier to understand if they used the word agreement, and described it in softer terms like the general agreement everyone in the world has that punching someone in the face is not an acceptable for of greeting? I mean, no one has said that, and you haven’t personally gone up to everyone and stated this and shook hands on it, but it’s still something everyone agrees on.

The social ‘contract’ is like that, it just uses an unnecessarily official sounding term in it, but ultimately is just the understanding that some concessions have to be made to deal with other humans. The terms of the contract are really to vague to ‘sign’, and when people start referring to more specific terms things can go of the rails pretty quickly, but there is still an implicit agreement. It’s like living in an apartment where you didn’t sign the lease…sure you’re not legally bound by the terms in the same way that someone who did sign the lease is, but your still bound by them in some ways simply by living in the apartment. In the same way, continuing to live in society is the way the ‘contract’ gets signed.

It’s the same contract you ‘sign’ with your friends or co-workers. People, especially in this thread, break it out as some solid ‘thing’, but it’s like any other ethereal concept that gets referred to by a concrete word. English is hard and not every word brings along every element in every instance. You could say that an ‘agreement’ must have a written, or at minimum a spoken set of terms, but you could have an agreement not to physically fight someone just by a few movements of your body, and ‘break’ that agreement by broadcasting one set of signals and then taking a swing at them.

He needs to ‘work’ on his being autistic? Like he needs to tone down this autistic diagnosis you just performed in order for you to accept him?

If it’s just a verbal interface to a smartphone it’s going to be a waste of time. There are a lot of people who do feel comfortable blabbering their thoughts out loud regardless of their surroundings, but that seems to have a big overlap with people wanting attention.

If it’s truly ‘AI’, it should be able to incorporate what truly works for people, whether that means speech to text for outbound messages, summarizing long emails for inbound, gestures, haptics, anticipating time based tasks, to making up meal plans when it recognizes you’re adding random items to your shopping list and looking up a dozen recipes, and figuring out what alarms and alerts actual get your attention for things you actually treat as important vs the ones you mark as important and then snooze a dozen times. If it actually starts with AI, it might recognize what alert you need to see on your computer and what notifications it can wait to show when your on the toilet….that future is awesome and scary and will probably make some billionaires before it wipes out humanity or turns us into infants crying to have our diapers changed as it takes over everything else.

Maybe because you haven’t seen an AI first designed ‘anything’. I doubt they really have a sense of what it is either, but if they actually did take what is incorrectly, but popularly, phrased as ‘AI’ and built a personal communication platform from it, I think it would be different enough that you saying ‘it’s not worth it’ before having any sense of what it is, is premature in the most literal sense.

Mostly it’s because, information wise, it’s almost nearly “free” to take a design and duplicate it…bilateral symmetry is natures version of copy/paste.

With that in mind, it’s likely that non-‘bilaterally symmetrical’ organisms relatively regularly spontaneously develop it due to random mutation. Just like we often randomly find people with extra fingers or only one set of organs, over millions of generations, bilateral symmetry will naturally just happen. The difference being, extra fingers or ‘more than two’ organs rarely offer any evolutionary advantage, especially in already complex forms.

Millions of years ago, however, very simple organisms suddenly having two brain lobes, two eyes, twice as many fins, two gills, etc….for free (informationally) and at only a relatively higher cost energy-wise could have found itself at a distinct advantage. If you can both run from predators and towards food twice as fast, and the energy cost isn’t twice as much, you’re suddenly the two legged guy at the ass kicking contest in a parade full of one legged people.

I think if you go into them for what they are, basically the ‘official’ sequels/prequels, and treat it like any other series, fiction or non fiction, written by another author in another voice, they’re fine. Its really the world you’re reading about. Maybe if they were written on their own without Dunes shoulders to stand on, the voice of the books might not trap you the same way, but i think lots of purists are too hung up on it being ‘not frank’ to possibly give them a fair chance.

By the time those thing will have taken over, something else will be in their place. For certain values of ‘trains’, ‘urban’ and ‘micro mobility’, your claim will likely be true, but ithat is too vague to talk someone out of if that’s simply your stance.

There’s a tension and maybe responsiveness to skin and muscles that is uncanny when missing. Not sure many here could 100% recognize that very early on at the point of death, but at some point there is a wariness/unnatural look to the skin. Between that and our assumed ability to pick up on a complete lack of movement/breathing/pallor makes it reasonably certain that there is a “something” we recognize as missing, even if it’s hard to describe perfectly.

Well it kind of has to be satire, since it’s suggesting time travel as the shortcoming, but yeah, it is ridiculous how little care motorists pay to cycles. On the other hand, I’ve met plenty of cyclists acting just as entitled, blowing through signs and pedestrian crossing as though they have the same rights as a car, but for in situations where it’s more convenient, as though they don’t have to obey the same rules. And, of course, the situations where they are completely in the right, but so outmatched by tons of steel that being right only matters to their family in court. Operators of cars and bikes can both be distracted or make a mistake, but only one of them is likely to face life ending consequences in an interaction between the two of them.

Reasonably sure anyone who doesn’t speed because they are afraid of driving is committing driving violations left right and center out of timidity rather than speeding.

Just thought of a great debate adjustment. Each side gets equal time, and every time they jump in and interrupt the person whose time it is, they get double that amount of time taken off their next turn…and their mic is cut entirely during that time. The amount of childish, unmoderated foot stomping and disrespect is absolutely ridiculous lately.