I’ll let them go first. I insist.

We can barely manipulate simple organisms without causing negative second order effects to cascade through our systems.

It would be a matter of concentrating specific SNPs that are already identifiable in human populations. There is no need to create new SNPs of unknown outcomes. There would be no difference if the SNP was put there through intervention or if it was inherited by a parent. Since these SNPs already exist the outcomes can and are being studied.

These are the types of assumptions and blindspots that lead to unintended negative effects.

Your approach assumes that the distribution of those SNPs at the population level is immaterial.

What makes an allele attractive at one frequency can expose new liabilities at a different frequency.

>> Your approach assumes that the distribution of those SNPs at the population level is immaterial.

No it doesn't.

  >> What makes an allele attractive at one frequency can expose new liabilities at a different frequency.

So there is this thing called statistics...

There is a false assumption in behavioral genetics that behavior and intelligence are weakly linked to 1000s of SNPs which would make it rather difficult to stay within normal bounds, but in reality there are a few rare SNPs that dominates high intelligence. The RCCX genes of TNXB, CYP21A2, and C4 being the strongest. Of these I would focus on only two TNXB SNPs and there are many people walking around today who have them.

I suggest you go to random.org and play with the coin flipper or dice roller for a couple of hours.

[edit] I just rolled 60 dice and got a string of 7 2’s in a row. Can someone calculate the odds of that happening for me?

"repeated number 2 out of 5 on a dice" vs. "repeated brain tumour out of infinite other things that can happen in dynamic system you don't even know all the parts" rly?

run an RNG that doesn't quantize to an integer and see how many repeats you get then:)

Also, over half the world's population has H. Pylori, which interferes with B12 absorption.

Humans creating problems they then need to then solve transcends and predates any ideology.

Capitalism just lets you scale it out to new heights! :)

The transfer of wealth from the UK to the US as a result of WW1 and WW2 debts is one of the more substantial wealth transfers in history.

Nod. Well, world to UK to US. With an industrial and imperial giant harvesting the wealth of the world, and then impoverishing itself, in part, to the US. I'd love to see Sankey diagrams of it all.

Simply reparations for 1776 and 1812!

These resonated with me as the world's AI-automating all the things.

Particularly:

"Digital devices tune out small errors while creating opportunities for large errors."

Use the pen that comes with it, magnet side facing the screen and sweep across the areas that are misaligned or the whole screen.

This fixes things for me.

Mine actually usually has okay uniformity everywhere except about an inch from the right edge (particularly 1/3rd of the way from the top) and the magnet trick doesn't fix it for me there.

I’ve heard this and tried and didn’t notice a difference. What’s supposed to happen here? I have the Marker Plus.

This has never worked for me. Sometimes it's more than 1 mm off.

I haven't heard this trick. I'll try it out!

Not for me.

Agreed. Messy overlap + an app called HazeOver where you can dim apps out of focus is the best approach to this.

If you are desperate for a job you probably shouldn't be negotiating too hard.

If your downside is protected and you've got options, you're a fool if you're not negotiating.

If they are already offering double your current salary, should you risk it to ask for more? Of course you can negotiate, but if you lose that it is a big deal. It's an honest question, I found myself in that situation.

If your counterparty knows you are desperate. Mostly perception matters.

It's nice to interact with people who are strangers. Grocery store employees, baristas, mechanics, service people etc.

As you get older, a lot of the people you interact with regularly you have a responsibility for/to. Co-workers, bosses, family, kids.

With strangers, even the grumpy interactions are fun. No responsibility.

> With strangers, even the grumpy interactions are fun. No responsibility. So you’re saying that you can be a jerk to these people because they don’t know you? Am I missing something?