I wonder how these Gloo guys want to serve a fractured user base. People make fun of Google generating images with diversified Nazis, but imagine serving flocks that have these diverse expectations. Is it going to tell people to stone someone, or slap their kids? Probably not. But where do they draw the line? Domestic violence? Too bad divorce is not an option. Or is it?
Going to be a wild fun ride talking to these indoctrinated bots. Like browsing the Conservapedia of old.
I've seen a few dead posts where there was an innocent misunderstanding or wrong assumption. In those cases it would have been beneficial to keep the post visible and post a response, so that readers with similarly mistaken assumptions could have seen a correction. Small minority of dead posts though. They can be vouched for actually but of course this is unlikely to happen.
I agree that most dead posts would be a distraction and good to have been kept out.
I like comments about intent, about the why. The generators are really bad at intent, they just write dross comments about the how. The worst part is how they're not accustomed to comments about intent and tend to drop those!
Say I wrote a specific comment why this fencepost here needs special consideration. The agent will come through and replace that reasoned comment with "Add one to index".
The weird thing to me is how investors can hold shares and vote against this outrageous compensation. Because the valuation of Tesla is tied to the belief in a glorious future as told by the main character. Either you believe in that future and hodl, or you got the hell out yesterday. Is what I would assume.
The letter says that these investors have no confidence in how the show is run. Why haven't they sold? What value do they see?
Still if the foreign DNA is beneficial in keeping the hive going, it will help spread the queen's DNA. Should some allele work against the adoption of the foreign DNA, fitness drops, and that allele would become less frequent.
Who is doing the removing at fertilization is interesting mostly in a mechanical sense. The mechanisms that worked against it are being suppressed or selected out entirely.
It sure is an interesting case that one ant species is having another species promote their males if one looks at it from a gene perspective. A very weird case of symbiosis.
Here's my theory of how it may have happened. Stage 0: 5 million years ago they were the same species. Stage 1: Subspecies. Ibericus and Structor became distinct populations of the same species still capable of mating. Stage 2: Parasitism. Structur became capable of replacing Ibericus dna with their own in eggs. Stage 3: Loss of function. Because of rampant structor parasitism nearly all workers were structor. So when Ibericus lost the ability to make their own workers it was a neutral mutation.
If I understand it correctly their theory is as follows. Stage 0: 5 million years ago they were the same species. Stage 1: Subspecies. Ibericus and Structor became distinct populations of the same species still capable of mating. Stage 2. Loss of function. Ibericus lost the ability to create their own workers, but as Ibericus and Structor existed in the same places hybrid workers allowed Ibericus to survive despite this. Stage 3: Ibericus learns to clone structor males to live in places where there are no Structors naturally.
Kinda interesting that even though the end result is the same who is considered the parasite is different.
One of the author of the study here. Your scenario is very good. The reason why we believe that the second one is way more likely is because there are several other species of the Messor genus that need to hybridize to produce workers, so it's very likely that it's the ancestral state and that male cloning comes after.
Note that this second scenario doesn't necessarily imply that M. structor males are not some sort of parasites. Actually, because it's detrimental to M. structor males to father only workers (they don't transmit their genes to the next generation), it's easy to imagine selection to remove DNA of the mother so they can be cloned in a fertile caste (males). That being said, maternal DNA elimination prompted by the male genome would be nearly immediately also beneficial to M. ibericus (because having M. structor males at home is good for them), so this maternal DNA removing is something that benefits to both partners, which is why it's not that difficult to imagine that it evolved and has been succesfully selected. When something benefits to both partners of any relationship, there are good chances that it will be selected at some point.
OK, I've considered that and determined it to be mostly wrong. While drone failure is an acceptable outcome, current technology still doesn't allow drones to be as safe as equivalent crewed aircraft across the full range of flight operations. Maybe in 50 years we'll get there.
Sure current tech does not allow us to safely automate flights. What I wanted to get at is that tech that doesn't need developing does not get built. Looking at drone failures does not tell us the max safety they would reach if we focused on that.
Obviously a droneliner would look very different from the jets that are common today.
Going to be a wild fun ride talking to these indoctrinated bots. Like browsing the Conservapedia of old.