I don't get the 'too high resolution' argument in 2024. The additional power consumption is negligible as has been pointed out by others. My 2013 Nexus 5 had a 1080p display.
> if you can't drive this
I assume your use case is playing Triple AAA games. But there are others such as Indie games and emulation which both benefit from higher resolutions. Especially in emulation a higher resolution will allow you to do integer scaling for a greater number of systems etc.
It's perfectly rational to decrease the probability of getting involved in such a scenario even if the probability is very low. It all depends on the (subjective) cost of this incremental improvement to OP. In addition there is the benefit of being able to send a signal, and the associated utility is likely non-zero to OP as well.
> The probability of encountering something like this is so astronomically low, you'd be better off buying a newer, safer car because you're more likely to be killed driving to the airport to get on a 737 MAX.
No, we don't have a definitive answer. We are very good at describing what happens when we sleep and what goes wrong when we don't, and so there are a number of theories as to why we sleep. But a definitive answer? There isn't one (yet). Here is the most likely theory according to Wikipedia:
>The essential function of sleep may be its restorative effect on the brain: "Sleep is of the brain, by the brain and for the brain."[95] This theory is strengthened by the fact that sleep is observed to be a necessary behavior across most of the animal kingdom, including some of the least evolved animals which have no need for other functions of sleep, such as memory consolidation or dreaming.
>We are very good at describing what happens when we sleep and what goes wrong when we don't, and so there are a number of theories as to why we sleep
I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're trying to make. There's not purpose in a volitional sense in evolution, only effects. We sleep because necessary functions occur when we do and problems happen when we don't.
24 hour cycles are even observed in bacteria and archaea as well as the individual cells in our bodies. If I am understanding correctly, even in pure darkness bacteria will respond to 24-hour cycles of temperature change. Considering this, combined with the critical role of the microbiome in human health and the fact that our bodies tend to get 1-2 degrees cooler when we sleep, it seems our sleep/wake cycle may go even go beyond the brain.
I believe you're trying to assign a design intent behind sleep. Nature doesn't need this. We sleep because it works better than not sleeping, and that's all there is to it.
I thought the question was more along the lines of, "why do these things that happen during sleep require us to be asleep and not just happen all the time?"
> When you bake with such flours, you get a denser bread and when you create a starter with them, you'll struggle to get them to double in size for the same reason.
Sharing my personal experience: I use a 100% rye starter (wholemeal or, preferably, German type 1150 [1]) and my starter grows ~2-2.5x in volume. Gluten has an impact but is less important when you proof in a small container (same reason you would bake a high hydration rye bread in a tin). What is a lot more important is that a) the hydration is right, so the starter is not too liquid (in my case a bit less than 100%), and b) you feed the starter in a ratio of 1:3 old:new, or even 1:5.
You are confusing "no base" with "no evidence". A basis can also be logical support. And OP has outlined the logical (decision theoretical) foundations of their reasoning pretty clearly.
I've seen this argument so many times. I like something, so we have to make a law to force it to exist. Or, I don't like something, so we have to make a law to make it illegal.
Unless there is a monopoly, and social networks certainly aren't one, there's no reason to force them to do anything.
So why are we forcing social networks to do a lot of things already today: We force them to remove illegal content, remove content that is not suited for minors, moderate content that is traumatic, protect people's privacy etc?
I don't really understand? Is your point that we should not be doing this as well? Is your fear that the state of California will moderate Twitter?
Not the person you’re replying to, but: Is this supposed to be some kind of contradiction? There are a lot of things I think should exist but don’t want there to be laws enforcing that fact.
No, I'm trying to understand what OP's position is?
> There are a lot of things I think should exist but don’t want there to be laws enforcing that fact.
Can you give some examples? I can't think of a single social network that is not moderated, even 4Chan is to some extent. Maybe on the darknet? But even then moderation exists I assume.
So it seems clear to me that there should be some minimum standard in moderation, which should be enforceable.
It's kind of ironic that we discuss this on a heavily moderated platform, which is both moderated by a centralised authority as well as the users themselves.
Read the original quote from the article. It does not say that the state should say that there should be some moderation, it says that the state should say how platforms are moderated. "how closely the state should be involved in the moderation practices of private platforms"
Also, again and again: the fact that all platforms you know are moderated does not mean that this should happen by law.
When a site sets their own standards of moderation, users have a choice to use or not use the site based on those standards. When the state sets the standard, then users are not able to choose the site that has the appropriate amount/type of moderation.
Clearly, there are people who want to use sites with minimal moderation, eg 4chan.
I don’t want to use 4chan myself, because of its lack of moderation, but why should I care if others do want to use 4chan?
I think OP’s point is pretty clear - just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it should be illegal.
I don’t understand what is so complicated about this. The legal system is not the solution to every problem. Moderation is not the same as passing laws.
Some analysts say the situation is (was) more nuanced: Prigozhin was pro-Putin but anti-MOD. His intention was to replace the MOD, claim their resources and fight in lieu thereof, for Putin. The article also hints at that.
> if you can't drive this
I assume your use case is playing Triple AAA games. But there are others such as Indie games and emulation which both benefit from higher resolutions. Especially in emulation a higher resolution will allow you to do integer scaling for a greater number of systems etc.