Danksy

How is it wrong? First it makes some assumptions about the question and answers the typical version of the riddle. Then it answers the trivial version where there are no additional items. Seems like a complete and reasonable response to me.

Meta holds the record for the largest gdpr fine at 1,2 billion euro.

The lack of nuance in any discussion on Lemmy is making me less and less interested in comment sections.

They're not saying it is the only factor, only that it is a relevant factor. Which it obviously is.

It's easier to nitpick than it is to interact with the actual argument.

I agree with you. The headline is misleading, and I think it devalues the article.

And he discredits his own argument 20 minutes later.

This is still based on fit, evolution, and technology in the context of Earth and humans. Who knows how (or if) evolution could or would work on other planets. Who knows which traits fit would select for, and what process that selection would be based on.

Also, who knows how else technology could look. We have tech that HUMANS couldn't imagine just 100 years ago. How are we supposed to imagine what technology would look like on alien planets.

My point is: you shouldn't look at the probability of human technological intelligence. And we naturally can't look at non-human technology since we haven't found any. We can't know the probability. All we know is that it has happened at least once.

He spent 25 minutes contradicting himself and concluded "we don't know".

Shrinkflation still happens, you just get to watch two numbers go up now.

The link references "a/bc" not "a/b*c". The first is ambiguous, the second is not.

Assumed by whom? Clearly not everyone.