unnecessary traits might not always lead to extra cost, and even then, the extra cost might not always lead to extinction.
the extinction usually happens when a trait that represents a disadvantage in a sufficiently heavy competition for survival. If the competition is low enough, the trait may survive.
how are you defining irrational? the definition i know is not base dependent.
whatever works…
not everything in a language is helpful.
what do you mean by “explicitly non gendered”?
yes, i wasnt advocating you should know any specific grammar. and that distinction is a good point. I meant that learning a prescriptive grammar decently is an important tool for reasoning. im not saying that descriptive grammars are bad, just defending that prescriptive grammars arent as useless as people seem to judge them.
yes, its very arbitrary, but these are sets of rules that you can use to structure your thoughts. language helps us reason. it doesnt matter that it is arbitrary. definitions in mathematics are very arbitrary, but they are a foundation we can lean on to reason about abstract ideas. Being arbitrary is not a testament of uselessness. Different languages, lead to different foundations for structuring ideas. But dominating at least one of those foundations can be very important cognitively.
i think that being used to properly structure sentences is important for reasoning well.
i agree that the effects of books and writing were probably beneficial to the brain, although they might have atrophied the memory and something else. But im not sure about tv, radio, internet and AI.
but are they wrong though?
be mindful of what info you want out of instagram before opening it. open it, get what you were looking for and get out. dont let it suck you in. turn off notifications. maybe install it in the work profile (if you use android) and leave the profile disabled when youre not using it.
i try to only open it once a week, like i do with my personal email. otherwise i get sucked into it when i procrastinate. but i admit i mostly rely on some friends finding out about local events.
you underestimate too much. trump is just a face, there are plenty of people working with him and planning all kinds of shit. any kid plans some trickeries while playing board games. what makes you think a political group is incapable of forethought?
“for people”
This doesn’t mean a lot for people who don’t know about people, or dont want to look it up.
why?
i struggle to see how this problem transfers to fake news regulation
transparency is precisely what can make regulations not be censorship, or I should hope so.
When a judge decides to convict someone of murder, we all know they might be wrong. The judge is not entitled to decide what objective reality is, he just decides how the judiciary system sees and treats the situation, as someone has to do it.
The same thing should be applied to fake news, which is sharing (dis)information with the false appearance of some verified news piece to influence people into making certain decisions.
Of course, there’s a big potential for censorship in how we treat fake news. So this treatment should follow clear objective criteria and be absolutely transparent.
who knows… but the us has softer means to pressure europe
Pointing that A is like B regarding the aspect X is often treated as a “comparison” between A and B, but it doesnt imply that A is as great, as important, or as bad as B. It doesnt imply that A is like B in any way other than in the aspect X.
Why not focus on the point that is being made instead of freaking out over the angles from which the analogy breaks down. Every analogy breaks down from some angle.
thats different from fake news, still
it is a rejection of a little part of Darwin’s theory, yes, I know. I do agree with the main part though.