That’s not a realistic outcome. The accessible volume grows as t^3, at most, while population can grow exponentially with a fairly short doubling period. An exponential will always outrun a polynomial.
I could mention other reasons, but this one will do.
Essays can (and have) been written about what keyboards to buy.
It’s very easy to spend $100 on a keyboard that isn’t very good; moreover, you won’t necessarily know, because most keyboards aren’t very good. It’s also very easy to spend $3-400 finding the right keyboard, because mechanical keyboards—and you should get a mechanical one, unless you go with Topre—are all subtly different from one another. That’s why I now have four.
A keyboard lending library might be a good idea; unfortunately, it appears I’m the library.
If you don’t want to spend the time on research, though? Get a Unicomp keyboard. (Do spend the time on research.)
In the limit as time goes to infinity?
Yes. The evolutionary arguments seem clear enough. That isn’t very interesting, though; how soon is it going to happen?
I’m inclined to think “relatively quickly”, but I have little evidence for that, either way.
The point of the rule is to limit the amount of bad content. This isn’t bad content, so working around the rule seems justified.
If a rule and the stated reason for the rule conflict… the rule sometimes wins, but only for practical reasons that don’t seem to apply here.
It’s not exactly known.
Grover’s algorithm provides a quadratic speedup over brute-force algorithms for solving NP-complete problems, but that still leaves them as exponential-time. BQP (Bounded error, quantum, polynomial-time; basically the complexity class of quantum computers) is suspected to be disjoint from NP and a superset of P, but neither is known for sure.
There might be a bit of selection bias there.
I can’t stress this strongly enough. I’m an engineer at Google, and do a lot of interviews here.
The hiring decision is based on interview performance, estimates of where you should be—based on history, age, etc.—and such things. It is not at all based on GPA. GPAs are only important inasmuch as it might get you past the first bar of getting to an interview at all, something you can automatically bypass by having someone who already works for Google recommend you, as well as a couple other ways. Personally, I was headhunted over IRC; my GPAs never came up at all, and they didn’t ask for a copy of my transcript until after I’d already signed a hiring contract.
This is, of course, not true for all companies—but I do think it’s true for the better ones. In short, actual skill is what matters.
Because if you don’t, someone else will.
Presuming you can maintain a social structure for that many generations. Since you also need to maintain the ship, staying intelligent falls out as a subgoal of staying alive.
Right, thanks.
(BTW FWIW I’m a “he”.)
I’m not going to remember that. My memory for people isn’t small, but it’s mostly taken up by fictional ones.
That wouldn’t prevent selective quoting, and all the other typical human behaviour which would, still, incentivise consistency.
I’d be wary of making a thing like that. Even ignoring the EU’s bizarre “Right to be forgotten” law, people should be allowed to change their opinion, and such a website would incentivise consistency only. Not truth; consistency.
Are you sure that’s what you want?
How badly do you want to delete everything? There might be easier options, but if there aren’t I can certainly cook up a mass-deletion script. Just, I don’t want to test it on my own account so you’d need to let me access yours.
(Yes, I could make a test account for the purpose. That would be more work.)
EDIT: I got a little way into implementing this before [deleted] bade me stop, thus the spate of retracted comments. Hopefully ve’ll change ver mind, as some of those comments were quite interesting; however, this has gotten me thinking. The site has a comment deletion option, but not if you’re deleting your account entirely; should it have that? If we don’t want people to do use it, but still leave the scripting option open, am I expected not to use that option?
I feel pretty confident calling him a Cassandra.
I agree with the rest of your comment, but calling him a “Cassandra” means “He’s right, but no-one will believe him,” and I hope that isn’t what you meant!
An applicable morality tale here would be the boy that cried wolf, if he hadn’t retracted his post. I don’t remember if he had a name. (Elon Musk: Inverse Cassandra.)
Sounds to me like the cliche isn’t always positive.
I would add that (vague recollection upcoming:) chicken might be healthier than beef, if you’re just going to eat one of them.
It means experiencing little or no conflict between the gender you’re generally treated as, the anatomy of your body, and the gender you regard yourself as.
Well, that feels like it should be a sliding scale.
I’m not sure where I’d put such a conflict meter, if one existed, but it isn’t at 0.
Gur fxhyy vf hfhnyyl abg pbafvqrerq gb or n fvatyr obar, ab. Vg’f rnfl rabhtu gb tbbtyr “Ynetrfg obar”, naq gur nafjref ner pbafvfgrag.
You should ask a dietician, not us.
There are many other vegetarians; this seems like it should be a solved problem.