> AI doesn't exist to make extroverts feel better about themselves

Then why are the extroverts trying to replace engineers with AI?

Because it seems to be economically the right thing to do.

Maximizing shareholder value seems like a weird thing to hold as a moral imperative.

> Because it seems to be economically the right thing to do^H^H^H^H^H optimal for a few billionaires.

FTFY.

...though even the billionaires may regret it if the peasants wind up starving by the billions. Species don't do well with tiny populations.

And before anyone says "UBI," give me a coherent explanation of:

* who is going to fund UBI to the tune of fifty trillion dollars * why we're so confident they'll do that * why there are currently so many people starving and homeless in SF if if any tech billionaire feels the need to spend their money providing for other humans

Internet Doomsday Evangelist seems to be a role with infinite chairs.

I don't think you've seen many biology field data sets.

Many relative to the total set, no. But enough to know writing it down isn’t going to cut it. Most datasets I’ve seen are xls, hdfs or csvs nested many directories deep. Not exactly for those who can’t manage an email filter. Without getting into the processing of it either

You can store Perl in any file format.

All biology folks I'm interacting with are juggling excel sheets all day.

It's not even standard in academia.

Depends on the discipline. I never hear of mathematicians using anything else.

What? Eddie and Alexei were the heroes of that story, and they got screwed.

Assuming that everyone you meet is conspiring against you seems to be a pre-requisite to these. The feasibility of that is questionable.

Back in the day, being a teenager and hanging out on freelancing forums was enough.

I've also heard good things about Celeste and Silksong.

Using the word priors in the way you (and others) do.

Meth causes brain damage. Dex doesn't.

Well, it's not that simple. It's reasonable to expect that you could see some increased level of oxidative and excitotoxicity. It's harder to draw a bright line around the dopaminergic system specifically because some level of neuronal death is expected over the course of a lifetime. We lose 5-10% starting with middle age yet don't tend to show parkinsonian symptoms until 60-80% are gone.

It's pretty reasonable to expect reversing DAT and inhibiting VMAT2 increases oxidative flux, the question is really how much not if. Methheads certainly get "brain damage", but is nudging the average loss from 5-10% to 7-12% "damage"? Is it meaningful? Over 30, 40 years that could very well add up.

Could you point me to your research?

You made the first unsubstantiated claim

Meth is also used as an ADHD treatment. I think the reason is just the dosages that are used by addicts compared to people who just need the ADHD treatment.

A typical legitimate therapeutic methamphetamine dose is around ~20mg (up to maybe 60mg a day). A typical dose used by addicts is around 1 gram. And it's usually smoked, resulting in immediate bioavailability.

Pretty sure a gram of pure meth or even adderall would kill you

I should have clarified that it's a daily dose: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.05.09.25327334v...

Not that it matters that much. It's no wonder that it fries your brain when you're using 25 _times_ the normal therapeutic dose.