It might reflect a prejudice of modern human society to think more highly of people who are intelligent, and think less of people who we deem stupid.

I'd say AI should not by default gain any social status as human-equivalent even if they become (in whatever regard) more intelligent than humans. But that would require us to drop the notion that intelligence ~= respectability/status/ability to have a full subjective experience.

Most of these kind of pseudo-philosophical controversies actually tell more about the issues with humanity than the new tech/stuff...

Since when has intelligence had a strong relationship to status and respectability? I've met intelligent people that don't get much respect or status either because they don't look good, are shy or they don't have money.

This is your personal opinion or general consensus?

Why would it be my personal opinion? Do you think I was the one who did the research debunking them?

If you're too lazy to Google it for yourself, here's a history of the Blue Zone research, how the original "researcher" is profiting off of it, and the careful work that has been done to debunk it: https://www.science.org/content/article/do-blue-zones-suppos...

I think you misunderstand. You think blue zones are "thoroughly debunked". And it might be even true that blue zones aren't real.

But I am not seeing any evidence that the general public is aware of this. And thus we need more of the articles "asking" this question so that more people are aware of the issues on it.

FYI, the article you linked basically tells the same story as the topical article. Are you too lazy to read it before commenting?

A) I can't read the article because it's paywalled.

B) Regardless of what story it tells, the article is an opinion piece by a journalist and a cardiologist, not authorities on the topic, and has a misleading title: that "answering [the] question [of whether Blue Zones are real]" is harder than ever. It's not.

You didn't miss anything. There aren't any new facts in the article. It treats the original blue zone researchers very generously, waves its hands about drawing conclusions on whether the original blue zone research was due to pension fraud or not, and generally blathers on for dozens of paragraphs talking about various things tangentially related like that some blue zone areas no longer have many centenarians or various bullshit marketing claims using blue zone language by Buettner, etc, etc.

You keep saying that you "can't read the article" rather than that you choose not to. Are you philosophically opposed to clicking the archive link in this thread: https://archive.ph/cgUxZ?

Which is fine, although I personally wouldn't use "can't" to describe this stance. In any case, I think the discussion might be smoother if you were willing to review the article under discussion.

It depends on how you think the limited resources to perform research should best be allocated, and whether scientists should become more like doctors or lawyers so far as centralization of credentialing and professional gatekeeping goes. Doctors and lawyers have boards that can actually revoke your ability to practice for falling outside accepted standards. Science deliberately doesn't. Is that good or bad?

They should be allocated towards intellectual freedom biased towards randomness.

Existing knowledge is preserved implicitly and be the public, and well-trodden ideas are furthered by industry. Academia is the best place for experiments, which are necessary to avoid stagnation, because there’s only so much obvious (low-hanging) research which isn’t experimental.

Related: “Can random experimental choice lead to better theories?”, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/26339137261421577

My point is that the scientific establishment is already basically like those boards that can limit your ability to do research unless you have a license.

The "license" is a PhD (from a reputable institution) and publications in a select list of high profile journals.

I'm very curious why you'd think otherwise.

> The "license" is a PhD (from a reputable institution)

Maybe I'm biased as someone who has attained a PhD, but a PhD or master's is definitively not a license. It's almost necessary to have an advanced degree to be taken seriously, but that's not for reasons of normativity, but rather basic competence and a signal of investment. Your degree will not be revoked for the same reasons a doctor's or lawyer's license may be revoked (Francesca Gino lost her tenure, but not her degree). And IMO, your alma mater matters only as a proxy for your academic network; few in the academic world care if you went to MIT per se, but for the connections you made there.

I don't think there's an argument that the scientific establishment rejects many high-value contributions from uncredentialed/undercredentialed individuals.

> publications in a select list of high profile journals

Yeah, this is a serious issue. Although I don't know what it has to do with the question of whether the body of scientists proper should deliberate to establish consensus and distribute resources and prestige. If anything, Elsevier et al. have demonstrated that it can't be worse than letting the free market insert itself so insidiously.

Independent research by non PhD’s does occasionally get published, but it’s really difficult to meet the appropriate standards without a lot of very specific training.

There’s many objects discovered by amateur astronomers for example.

The prompt is literally "why is the sky blue?" and consists of 7 tokens.

It's probably too small for the timings to be taken seriously.

What do you mean? You pretty much described classic moral panic.

a classic moral panic would be videogames causing violence. what is happening is the beginning of something more akin to the luddite movement, and there is a chasm between them, and this has the potential to become far more widespread, and far more violent. it's not about the tech, it's about the economics.

If you implement a game, people would play the game. (which is better than if they ignored it)

I would have thought that software engineers, of all people, would understand that one's intention and what they actually implemented in a system can be two different things, and careful effort must be expended to properly implement it, and that "good intentions" alone is not sufficient.

There's playing the game as intended and playing to the rules. People who insist on doing the latter even after being asked not to are infuriating. I've got one friend who got himself permanently uninvited from board game night for these sorts of shenanigans.

Not even fish and chips?

Is cod supposed to be a particularly enjoyable fish?

I think the fact that it's deep-fried in batter is what tends to make it appealing to kids and those with kid-like tastes.

Well, to put it precisely, an omniscient being would theoretically be capable of knowing today's state of the law with probabilities assigned to the results.

I'm serious. Pick any non-trivial issues of law, ask a world leading expert, and you'd very quickly hear the word "probably" somewhere. Less often than "it depends", but you'll hear those words often nonetheless.

If that's "knowable" to you, I guess it's knowable.

document.addEventListener('keydown', (event) => {

  // Map the keys '1', '2', '3' to array indices 0, 1, 2
  const keyMap = {
    '1': 0,
    '2': 1,
    '3': 2
  };

  // Check if the pressed key is 1, 2, or 3
  if (event.key in keyMap) {
    const targetIndex = keyMap[event.key];
    
    // Dynamically fetch the buttons currently in the DOM
    const buttons = document.getElementsByClassName('block-button');
    
    // Ensure the button exists at that index before clicking
    if (buttons[targetIndex]) {
      buttons[targetIndex].click();
    }
  }

});

This works better if you change "block-button" to "attack-button", because you need to attack far more than block.

Once you get past the first level you're never using the attack action

I don't get it, aren't you supposed to attack to get the enemy HP down? How else are you supposed to win?

A spoiler, but higher level numbers gain auto attack.

You need to change the numbers you bring into battle to have at least one star

This script doesn't work for me, and mouse-based battle makes me want to throw the entire computer out the window.