Are they really either of those two things? Natural systems have no "goal", they just are. If they change, they change. If they stay the same, they stay the same. Because there is no goal, there is no "broken". It is only we who assign some sort of meaning to them and characterize them as "working", either because they meet our needs, or just because we are inherently impressed by complex systems.
If you follow through on there being no goal, there is no working or not-working state, in which case it bears no relevancy on the question of whether "Working" is not the natural state in a complex world!
Or rather, you could say TFA is made more correct, by virtue of “working” not being a natural state in the first place.
But if we allow room to anthropomorphize, we can basically state that the natural goal of a natural system is to keep doing what it do, at least in regards to the larger outcomes. And for some strange reason, these systems are shockingly difficult to influence at meaningful scale in ways that are rarely true for the systems we design. In one sense, they continue to operate despite continuous minor and possibly major (but not catastrophically so, by definition) perturbations to their state
You need to burn ridiculous quantities of dino juice to influence the weather system. You need to look at windows a little funny to bring it to a complete halt. You need to bully only few substations to bring down the electrical grid.
> And I never, never, NEVER want to write another line of BASIC code again in my life.
Awww. I downloaded the ECMA-55 standard from 1978 about a year ago and wrote an interpreter in C to be compliant with its "Minimal BASIC". I then had fun typing in code from old computer magazines. So much nostalgic fun.
I've discovered this when trying to get rid of low value stuff. If I put it up for free, there's usually either no response or a bunch of "I'll take it" and then never showing up. But if I put some minimal price on it, it usually goes quickly.
I had the opportunity to purchase a 550 Maranello for $75K about ten years ago. I should have done so, as it would have been a great investment. I would have had to scramble to find that kind of cash though. But I did have quite a few good years driving a 308, and I suspect that is enough Ferrari for me.
I once flew on a flight from ORD to ROC where I was the only passenger. It was very, very weird to be in a big empty cabin all by myself. The flight attendant just came and did the safety briefing sitting next to me. I asked her why they didn't just cancel the flight, and she said the plane had to be in ROC for the next morning anyway. This was in the 1990s though. I've never encountered anything like that since.
It is still like that. The airline’s operations all depend on the flight crew being in the right place at the end of the flight, which is a higher priority than getting a passenger there.
Dao was taken to a hospital with non-life-threatening injuries, including a broken nose, loss of two front teeth, sinus injuries, and "a significant concussion"; the injuries required reconstructive surgery, according to Dao's lawyer.
and
"He said, 'I can’t get off the plane. I have to get home. I'm a doctor. I have to get to the hospital in the morning.'" Myers stated that her response was not appropriate: "She said, 'Well, then I'll just have to call the police and have you escorted off the plane.'
I believe Stephen Wynne, the man you're referring to, still owns the new DMC company, and he did even produced a concept car of his Alpha5 model. But since 2022, there hasn't been much activity. His classic DMC parts sales side of the business is still active though.
I've got the same last name as a sitcom character from the 1980s. I used to get so tired of people pointing that out. Luckily nobody really remembers the show anymore, let alone the character.
But, yeah, it usually sets off my spidey sense when somebody keeps using my first name in conversation. It's just seems weirdly unnecessary, so it makes me wonder why they're doing it.
I've got a life long friend who's full first name is Josh, derived from the Japanese name Yosh. People often try to call him Joshua and it annoys the hell out of him.
Hey, man, drink what you want. It doesn't change my life in any way, shape, or form. But I have to ask, have you seen the image describing where decaf coffee comes from?
I should hope you're not being serious! In case anyone thinks this is real, decaf is not made from the dirt. It's beans that have gone through one of a few different processes. Swiss water method is what I prefer due to the low chemical processing.
Depends on your definition of healthy and sweet. ‘Healthy’ is vague and fairly subjective. Plenty of coffee substitutes exist, such as roasted chicory-barley mixes that taste decent and provide you with some fiber. Is it healthy?
Perhaps try roasted fig coffee substitute? It's definitely not coffee but has enough of the same roasty flavor notes to be passable. With milk and sugar, I probably wouldn't notice it wasn't coffee if I wasn't paying attention.
My question is whether espresso-method coffee has all the same properties. The study itself clearly states "brewed coffee" and they brew the crap out of it ("extraction in boiling water for 8–10 min"), I can't take brewed coffee on the regular b/c it upsets my stomach.
Yes, I know the four main methods of decaffeination. The haters have gone down this road with me many times. Why can't people just let me drink my decaf? It's like they can't enjoy their caffeine unless everybody does. It's weirdly pushy.
I don't think GP was criticizing you for liking decaf. Just pointing out that the decaf process may have affects on the beneficial compounds that aren't caffeine.
I didn't even know there were 4 methods - supposedly Swiss Water Process is the best in terms of not affecting the flavor or exposing you to exotic solvents, is one of the four superior to SWP?
My initial charitable reading -- as someone who sometimes dabbles in decaf -- is that decaffeination has the bad side effect of stripping flavors, and likely many of the other biologically active chemicals. I can see from their further posts that they were more interested in unscientific fear mongering instead.
That said, I do think there is some truth that decaf is lacking (including via supercritical CO2) and I wonder how long until we could have a product like genetically engineered coffee plants that produce everything except caffeine. I'd like that, though I can immediately see an issue with growing a plant without its natural pesticide.
> likely many of the other biologically active chemicals.
Do you reckon taking green coffee beans and roasting them til they’re brown right through has any detrimental effect on the biological compounds in the beans?
There is nothing objectively wrong with drinking something you like the taste of, however, when it is coffee specifically, I believe, the utility of it is the caffeine it contains; that, and the culture around coffee-drinking makes me feel the way I described. Notice the "in my humble opinion" at the end of my message.
Exactly — I am taking caffeine pills, and when I confessed this to a normie coffee drinker, I was called an addict, even though not only is the dose mere 100 grams, half of that of a Tim Hortons medium black, the pills also have L-Theanine in them, which is supposed to reduce jitteriness or something.
By "All you haters that give me grief for drinking my daily cup of decaf can shut up now", you are implying that decaf has the same health benefits of real coffee. That's not proven. And if you weren't meaning to imply that, there was no point to that reply.
Right? All high quality coffee makers use a proper method so there is absolutely zero downside in decaf. Just make sure to check which method they use (all big ones state it on their website or else)
Are they really either of those two things? Natural systems have no "goal", they just are. If they change, they change. If they stay the same, they stay the same. Because there is no goal, there is no "broken". It is only we who assign some sort of meaning to them and characterize them as "working", either because they meet our needs, or just because we are inherently impressed by complex systems.
reply