thebestaquaman

This is the issue you'll never get completely around with autonomous systems. A soldier can always figure something out, whether that is simply clearing their weapon, completely disassembling it to repair it, finding a new weapon on the battlefield or getting a buddies side-arm. An autonomous system will never be as versatile and capable of adapting to stuff breaking as a human soldier.

The major advantage with autonomous systems is that you can accept that they break and become dysfunctional in the field. You can always manufacture more, and none of your guys die when one of these fails.

With all that said, I would think you could get pretty far by just adding some arm that can slide back the bolt to clear/reload the weapon when you get a jam. Like 90+ % of the jams I experienced with the MG3 and HK416 were cleared by just doing that.

"By superheroine standards" is the key here. Going by how they're often depicted, I would say this could qualify as "pretty reasonable".

I had idiocracy on my list for a while. After watching it, I can confirm that it's easily one of the best movies ever made.

Horses are social animals that enjoy being active. I don't know where animal cruelty was mentioned here?

"You have been deemed rich/important enough that we'll allow you to bribe us"

Let's be honest, that's what this is. It's rich people paying money to talk to those with political power. It's a method of ensuring that those with political power can get a crapload of money in exchange for "listening to the grievances" of a select few. It's an arrangement for connecting people with power and money more closely, while excluding the common masses from the rooms where decisions are made. It's... corruption.

It shocks me that so many people are just blindly downvoting a comment like this. They make a very testable claim, and even cite a specific, easily searchable person, as their source. If you think the claim is unreasonable, it's very easy to ask them for more background info or sources, preferably while pointing out why you're sceptical.

To me, the claim that 16-20 year olds that are full to the brim of hormones, and have had less time to be exposed to various pollution than 30-somethings are more fertile seems reasonable off the bat. I have no doubt that I would have become a parent at 18 if it weren't for contraceptives, yet I'm now closer to 30 and haven't become a parent despite trying for a while. One side of that is that at 18 you're more likely to be constantly pounding like bunnies, another side is that stress, pollutants, and probably a whole host of other factors make you less fertile with age.

Show ads on the screen -> screen is vandalised -> nobody can buy gas anymore -> people go to the gas station without ads (and thereby functioning screens) -> lose money to the competition-> recognise that you lose money by blaring ads -> stop blaring ads -> .... -> profit

This is why people like him hate/fear regulation. Regulating this is the people's way (in a functioning democracy) to put hard barriers on what these people are permitted to do in order to squeeze out another dime.

aren’t bound to Evolutionary advantage to survive.

That's not how evolution works though. Evolution is a process that works a the gene-level. A gene that makes its carrier more likely to reproduce and keep its offspring alive will over time propagate and replace genes that are less likely to do so. This is a simple game of statistics that works regardless of whether the organism that carries the gene is a human or not.

Basically, evolution isn't about survival. It's about what genes are more likely to propagate to the next generation. You can simulate this fairly easily: If you have a completely stable population (the average person produces one offspring), and a gene that makes e.g. 10 % of the population produce on average 0.99 offspring, you'll see that after a certain number of generations that gene is drowned out and eventually extinguished. Any gene that isn't extinguished has survived because it doesn't put its carrier at a big enough disadvantage to be extinguished.

I’m not going to remember the exact domain of the survey company we use, what are you crazy?

I agree, and have decided to err on the side of caution, and also put the irritation over on higher-ups. If I get some link I'm required to click that I'm not actively expecting from an unrecognised address, just trash the email. A couple times, I've gotten follow-up from a superior asking me why I haven't responded to , and I just tell them I haven't seen it and that it probably got caught in my spam filter. They send me the link in question, and I respond.

I quite quickly realised that most of those surveys they need "everyone" to respond to will just slide quietly by when I do this, so I don't need to spend time on them. My reasoning is that if it's actually important, I'll get it through a reliable channel, and so far that's worked.

To be fair, I also dump anything that comes from some variant of "noreply" to junk. I figure that if I can't reply, and I'm not actively expecting the email enough that I check my junk folder, it isn't important.

In that case, ok I guess?

To be clear, your post reads like a legitimate question, especially considering the community you've posted to. I appreciate a good shitpost, but I tend to interpret questions on asklemmy and nostupidquestions as serious.