In my view, it is because if you don't, you die. This isn't merely about the division of labor; it’s about war between nations. The peoples here have endured thousands of years of cycles between violent upheaval and social stability. If you cannot rely on organizational cohesion to weather a crisis, you simply won't survive.
How does this differ from the Middle East? Because our friends in the Middle East have truly 'died off' in waves; many of the peoples who once inhabited those lands have long since been replaced."
> many of the peoples who once inhabited those lands have long since been replaced
That is overstated. "Arab" in a lot of cases is more a cultural moniker than a genetic one. For instance the Palestinians are some of the genetically closest modern populations to the ancient Canaanite remains we've studied.
True, I didn't phrase that perfectly. It is my opinion that climate change poses an even greater threat to the Middle East. It's reaching a point where states and groups can no longer sustain the massive resources required to fuel large-scale warfare like they used to.
Therefore, what I am really getting at is that the sheer intensity of competition in East Asia—particularly those existential social upheavals—is the true catalyst for what we call a 'cooperative' culture.
This is unsurprising. Wholesale genetic replacement basically doesn't exist unless there's a huge plague that kills 90% of the population or something (this happened in the Americas when the Europeans arrived, there are other cases of it in history but it's plenty rare). From an ancestry perspective, populations tend to be derived from the people that were there thousands of years prior; cultures and even elites can spread and migrate and cause huge material changes, but the bulk of the people just stay put.
> This isn't merely about the division of labor; it’s about war between nations
society isnt one big team that cooperates, its a bunch of slaves trapped in place by the lord/king/raj so he can tax them. he does it by claiming to govern and protect the land, and he kills people that dont agree with any part of it.
its telling that most armies throughout history were full of people who had to be FORCED to join. people arent "cooperating" the way you think they are
Windows keeps getting worse, but it's still not as bad as Android. It's like how an iPad with macOS would be great, but a MacBook with iOS would be terrible.
I've been using Fedora part-time and I'm quite happy with it. Although I access the Android ecosystem via Waydroid—which, I know, isn't a true 'Android desktop'—the reality is that few Android apps are actually designed for a desktop experience.
Android makes me feel like it wants to convince me that rooting is considered too dangerous even for advanced users—you have to be a developer to handle it, or you will kill yourself.
But it might be good news for the ARM platform. Given how fragmented ARM is, Windows on ARM has turned out to be an even bigger disaster, making a Linux-based approach a much more promising alternative.
Health data, medical records, even research data, is very scarce in the public domain. This is not just due to so-called privacy concerns, but because such data could have generated “value” (and been sold at a good price) long before the emergence of large language models.
I think it's quite alarming that people don't even think about the privacy when sending their health data to corporations which make a large percentage of their revenue selling the data onwards (or using it to things you didn't mean them to).
The issue lies not in shielding adolescents from the internet because of their susceptibility to negative influences, but in the very economic logic that governs the internet.
They’ve built a system where everyone—not just kids—is a bargaining chip. Influence is treated as a product and sold by deliberately creating viral trends. It’s no different from advertising, but much more aggressive. By pushing content through entire information streams and dominating attention, it achieves an impact traditional ads never could.
It’s proven to be extremely effective, so people keep paying for it and pushing the system forward, while brushing off criticism with cosmetic fixes—like banning kids from the internet and telling adults to just deal with it.
No, R is a serious general purpose programming language that is great for building almost any type of complex scientific software with. Projects like Bioconductor are a good example.
In my limited experience, Using R feels like to using JavaScript in the browser: it's a platform heavily focused on advanced, feature-rich objects (such as DataFrames and specialized plot objects). but you could also just build almost anything with it.
Just in case someone reads this far and sees blubber's confident "No." Blubber is definitely wrong here. I used to do all of my programming in R. Throw the question into an LLM if you're wondering if R has a package like ___ in python.
I know people who used Visual Basic for all of their programming. I'd say No either way unless people explained to me without bursting out into laughter that they also have extensive experience with, e.g., Kotlin, Rust, C#, Java etc. and still prefer VB or R for non-trivial programs.
Of course R isn't a complied language and probably not the same category as C/Rust as systems language but is not in the same category as VB. R is a serious scientific programming language used in non-trivial programs for industrial applications. See Posit's customers. I suggest John Chambers ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chambers_(statistician) ) book, he explain how he designed S language, R's grandfather so to speak, Software for Data Analysis ( https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-0-387-75936-4 ).
This isn't about compilation vs interpretation. R is simply badly designed as a programming language. This doesn't change just because its inventor wrote a book.
blubber, I think there might be some misconceptions. Just for the record.
R is not actually competing with those languages. R's design purpose is different. it is a general purpose computational language for scientists. There are FFIs (Foreign Function Interfaces) for all those languages.
The web of every age has certainly died, but only to be replaced by a new form of "web". We have had Web1.0, web2.0, or even web3.0, and waht more -- the AI;
The web that people were familiar with and loved back then had already died at that time. The new web is fundamentally different in both underlying technology and business models.
No. Web 3.0 is still far away—much like the so-called metaverse.
But AI stuff is everywhere, and AGI-generated material is growing rapidly. If this continues, traditional search engines will soon be overwhelmed by AI-produced content. In that case, you’ll have already stepped into the so-called “AI world.”
After all, AGI-generated content is so cheap, and at some level it does satisfy certain simple needs — so it’s inevitably going to be overused.
And we haven’t even begun to address the logic behind things like AI web crawlers, data aggregation, and the entire backend ecosystem. In the past, your users and their data were just “data.” But now, real human data can actually command a price — because it represents genuine, authentic human behavio.
Something has definitely changed — perhaps we could even call it the death of the traditional web. The old operational logic hasn’t disappeared, but it no longer seems competitive. Users may still like it or feel nostalgic about it, but it no longer creates the kind of appeal or value that companies need in the capital market.
Because people who hype Bitcoin claim that its value comes from it: Bitcoin is anonymous, secure, and private, and therefore can be used for illegal transactions without fear of being traced.
reply