And less crunchy.

The devil is in how things are made useful to users who just want to get things done. The problems comes with corporations making decisions about what users should need to understand, and what users want. There’s been a lot of dumbing down and manipulation in that process, serving the needs of those corporations and advertisers and not the needs of the users.

Software can be made useful for those who don’t want or need to undertand all the details, in a good, non-harmful way. The principle of separation of interface and implementation even demands it. But our society being what it is, that largely doesn’t happen, so I’m inclined to agree with your pessimistic take.

If we did we could save the money we spend on toothbrushes.

Humerous rant or not it seems reasonable to assume its basic claims about the animal are factual. It seems really fucked up to make shit up about an animal in order to rant about it.

Well yes, and what it means for “there to be things” is a whole discussion in itself. But the concepts of space and time are rather deep and fundamental (to our mental models regardless of how or if that maps to objective reality). The preference for right angles is much less fundamental and we can see past and get over it.

All this should tell us is that we have a strong irrational preference for right angles being aligned with each other.

Could somebody point out where the safe rocks are?

I would guess it’s to fool their prey.

You said

you would probably end up degrading your own experience; getting irrelevant ads

Irrevant ads = less targeted ads. You seem to think this is a negative. I’m saying it is actually a positive.

TIL: worms are metal.

Getting more targeted ads is not really in your interest. That is an idea promoted by the ad people.

I get and appreciate that joke. I actually meant the last phrase of the quote (the unintended irony of my question’s vagueness now noted!), “which can always be made more precise.”

Because we’re anxious about our investments in soylent green.

What exactly is that last phrase supposed to modify? I find that syntax confusing. Is that ironic or intentional?

All of history is one people taking over another peoples land. I’m not saying its right, but in virtually any part of the world there is a history of some invader or colonizer coming in and displacing or swallowing up the existing people, probably multiple times, down through prehistory as well.

I don’t think you can prove that people can’t do something well, by doing it yourself poorly.

“Look how humorously badly I keep missing the target! See? Sharpshooters could never hit something like this at this distance!”

BTW 100x is only possible with very small arthropods, the larger the ant or spider and the smaller that strength to weight ratio can be.

Now admittedly we can’t really know how large the spider and turtle are, if they are much smaller than I am imagining then my incredulity may be similarly out of proportion.

Every picture of a fishing spider I can find is holding its (smaller than this turtle) prey at the water’s edge, not dangling upside down with it in midair. They hunt by walking on the water, not by dangling and snatching from above. Are we to believe it caught its prey the normal way and then walked it up to that awkward position?

I imagine the weight of that turtle to be considerably more than that frog.

Also how do you think that spider is holding that turtle? Just what do you think has a grip on what?

Also zoom in and notice the odd gray smudging along the spider leg that is in front of the turtle shell. I’m no Photoshop expert but that looks suspicious to me.

It’s not a spider preying on a vertebrate that is hard to believe, it is the lifting. Even ignoring the physics of the situation, I don’t think fishing spiders hunt that way.

People act like they’ve forgotten that there are other ways than AI to fake an image.