Daniel Lindfors

[Daniel Lindfors @BosseBL]

@LibCrew @mb_ghalibaf There are many countries in the world where people will actually start starving if the dollar swings too much.
Sorry to say, but the US economy is the whole worlds business to care about. The dollar is still the world reserve currency.

[Daniel Lindfors @BosseBL]

It is kind of a law of nature that the last 10% of a project takes 90% of the effort.
I think what is happening here is that as we get tools and processes that makes the majority of our work easier, we have a 2 side effects that interact:

1. Since it is becoming more seemingly easy (the last 10% is very hard to picture), we take on more things we should not.
2. Since the majority of the work is easy, we get lazy and sloppy. Our skills degrade. Call it some kind of decadence. We hire more juniors and less skilled people.

Once we hit the last 10% that we constantly push to the future in hopes that it will magically solve itself, our tools and processes will not save us, and we don't have the brains to handle it.

I first started to reflect on this after getting the chance to work with Spring Boot some years ago. Yes, very quick to get stuff up and running. But I could sense that there eventually would come a feature or issue that would be impossible to fix without opening up and look under the hood of Spring Boot. Pray the team have a Spring wizard when that day comes. I did not have ambitions to become a Spring wizard. So I did not stick around.

Imagine how AI will amplify this tendency 😅

[Daniel Lindfors @BosseBL]

intressant. Då jag själv också är en skeptisk jävel så måste jag säga att jag respekterar din hållning.
Du garderar dig också fint med att det är specifikt råkost man måste äta. Så blir väldigt svårt att ens hitta anekdotiska belägg för det du säger.
Men då det fortfarande är möjligt att testa så går det inte att avfärda som en ovetenskaplig hypotes.

[Daniel Lindfors @BosseBL]

@EliasLeoBenBey @qloudberry1776 @emmasofiastahl Vitamin B12?

[Daniel Lindfors @BosseBL]

Tror du får hålla i hatten lite.
Det är en ganska gammal hypotes. Och likt den fosila hypotesen så har man här bara kunnat testa om det är möjligt i lab.
Det ena utesluter inte det andra, och ingen har än så länge kunnat observera den verkliga processen ute i naturen. För den tar lååååång tid och händer på platser som är ganska otillgängliga f��r oss.
Forskarna är än så länge splittrade kring ämnet, men lutar idag mer mot att den större mängden olja kommer från organiskt material.

huruvida olja kommer ta slut eller inte beror på om det fylls på snabbare än vi kan extrahera och förbruka det.
Faktumet att det förmodligen finns betydligt mer olja under jorden än vi tidigare trott och att dessa kommer räcka väldigt länge är en annan diskussion. Tror det är bäst att hålla dom isär.

De KTH studier du refererar hände för över 10 år sen. Är ganska säker på att du kan hitta nyare studier som gjorts på området.
Theorin kallas "Abiogenic petroleum origin"
Här är en wikipedia länk att starta grävandet ifrån
https://t.co/uKfk6nUIJA

[Daniel Lindfors @BosseBL]

It's kind of strategic in multiple ways. For one, they are to worlds factory and don't want to stop their industries because of fuel shortage.
If you think oil prices brings inflation with it, Imagine what would happen to the global inflation if energy shortages hit the Chinese industries. Then things would really start becoming more expensive.
If anything, the whole world should probably be thankful that China thinks more long term 😅

[Daniel Lindfors @BosseBL]

The funny thing is that China now also sells more non-EV than the west. They kind of used the knowledge and infrastructure they built up on pushing for EV to take over market shares there as well.
So even if all the other car companies now turns around, they will be equally screwed :D

[Daniel Lindfors @BosseBL]

Think the same thing might have happened without the government push. Tesla started a trend and China is taking the lead on it. No car company wants to be the next Kodak, and when they see the competition going into panic mode, they all act like herd animals. You see exactly the same thing playing out in AI, but way worse. And it's not just about cars turning EV. They are turning into more or less unreliable iPhones on wheels.

[Daniel Lindfors @BosseBL]

@al_vin @CalebFulston @oliverburdick please elaborate

[Daniel Lindfors @BosseBL]

I'm pretty sure lots of people arguing with you are science fanatics. Just don't group me in with them. I'm way too open minded and critical to belong to any group.
I'm not trying to convince you that evolutionary theory is correct. Merely point out that it is hard to completely reject it. And that what you think is proof that lets you reject it is not enough.

[Daniel Lindfors @BosseBL]

Its not about what I believe (which is nothing since I'm an agnostic). It is simply about acknowledging the problem of induction.
If you don't want to waste time reading what I'm actually saying and instead just assume you know what I'm saying it is up to you. You are welcome back if you actually want to have a discussion. Otherwise, I wish you a good day.

[Daniel Lindfors @BosseBL]

I guess some scientists might have been sleeping when they took the Philosophy of Science class.
One key take-away from it is that you cannot prove anything (at least not in the sense of the word as used in maths). You can only corroborate it. And the gold standard (which is not always followed) is to try and disprove (falsify) it, which should be possible if the theory is to be regarded as scientific in the first place.
For instance, the speed limit of light is falsifiable. You just have to find an instance where light breaks the speed limit. Since no one have, the theory remains.
God exists is not falsifiable. There is no way in which we can try and disprove it. Thus it is not a scientific theory.

But to be honest, we are kind of arguing semantics now. If you find no distinction between proving and corroborate (which is fair since the word "proof" is kind of used differently in many contexts), I don't really mind if you would say that scientists are in the business of proving things. I personally have a very specific and narrow interpretation of the word. Perhaps because I've studied way too much maths.

[Daniel Lindfors @BosseBL]

First of, science is not in the business of proving anything. Rather disprove as much as it can until there is a few possibilities left we can choose to believe in or simply just acknowledge as plausible explanations. I'm an agnostic atheist. So I tend to lean toward the latter and usually jungle multiple plausible explanation at once.
Because there are never just one explanation. Scientists are in constant debate over many theories. Not what you would believe when you go to school and are taught whatever trended as the story we tell the kids this generation.
I even dabble in ideas of greater entities or spaces beyond our understanding as a possibilities.
I will say though that scientists to a large degree has developed a fear of considering the super natural. If we are to be strict about it, it is not really scientific to not take all possibilities into consideration. I see this as a result of the separation between philosophy and science. Many times I feel there is as much gnosticism within science as in religion. To the detriment of both.

I don't know what proof you actually would like to have. - They have managed to create some single cell living organisms in a lab. Not completely spontaneous though.
- Experiments that have sought to recreate the conditions under that we claim live did emerge never yielded living organisms. But many building blocks and amino acid structures that makes it plausible. The issue is that the "primordial soup" was basically an ocean worth of molecules that had millions of years to run an uncountable number worth of these type of experiments. A petri dish experiment cannot be expected to do more since the formation of actually working cells we can already tell must be a very unlikely event. But unlikely is not 0.
- Looking through the geological and biological records, there are just too many pieces that fits together neatly to refute the idea that things may have evolved from simple to complex.
- We also have observed evolution in real time by observation up to the complexity of fruit flies.

Nothing of what I'm saying disproves the existence of a god. Not even if they had managed to produce life spontaneously. You might have to factor in though that things like evolution and life originating as simple single cell organisms may actually itself be part of gods great design.
Even if life formed by random chance, it is so unlikely on a cosmic scale that it is not out of the question to think that something beyond us had to nudge things in the right direction for it to take place. And if that is the case, perhaps whatever did it has kept nudging evolution in a specific direction all along.

Or god simply did the equivalent of snapping his fingers and things were just the way they are. But why all this complexity? Surely god did not have to give us a ton of useless genes we share with less complex organisms believed to have existed millions of years ago. What makes it extra strange is when we see that these genes actually fulfills a purpose in these less complex organisms, but non whatsoever in our bodies.
It's just one of many examples that makes the designer feel a little bit extra mysterious 😅

[Daniel Lindfors @BosseBL]

Thinking more about life in general, I have to admit it is more amazing than I think any of us gives it credit for. It's a machine that both builds and sustains itself. How that is even possible is mind-boggling.
You may think micro organisms are simple. The organs and macro of more "complex" life is nothing compared to what goes on inside each single cell. If you want to find evidence for God, I think you would find way more interesting things under a microscope and in biochemistry than looking at tree structures or relationships.

[Daniel Lindfors @BosseBL]

Yes of course. That is how it alledgedly starts. I don't know if there is a point you want to make, so I will just keep elaborate some more.

Most things in life starts simple and grow complex. So it kind of make sense. Don't think I've ever experienced something that started out complex (not to be confused with complicated). If you have, let me know.

Microbes are still responsible for the majority of CO2 production. So we mouth breathers could kind of just disappear, and the plant life would make due without us.

[Daniel Lindfors @BosseBL]

when you say atheist, you are actually reffering to a gnostic atheist. Most atheist are however agnostic.
Judging by what you said, I have to assume you are a gnostic theist.
So we have a gnostic complaining about other gnostics...
I'm not even going to say what my feelings about it is 😅

[Daniel Lindfors @BosseBL]

In the beginning, there were a wide veriety of energy pathways that did not rely on O2 nor even CO2. We can see the remnants of these in many places. The burn you get from anaerobic exercising or brewing beer (fermentation).
These together with vulcanoes started creating the athmosphere that among other things had a lot of CO2.
Photosynthesis evolved as a new energy pathway to take advantage of this, raising the O2 levels for the first time. And then aerobic respiration came to take advantage of this.

If you spot a symbiosis in nature, it did not start as symbiosis. You just need to think a little and you can come up with many possible ways a symbiosis emerge.

You don't even have to think in evolutionary terms.
Just look around you and try find any co-dependence. How does an employe become so important at his workplace that the company can't fire him?
How did two nations manage before they became completely dependent on trading with eachother?

[Daniel Lindfors @BosseBL]

Pretty sure he has no risk of metabolic health issues. You can be thin and look like an obese person on the inside. And you can be overweight with very little viseral fat.
For average people, how fat they are is a fairly decent statistical marker. But this dude is far from average 😅

[Daniel Lindfors @BosseBL]

You also have to understand something. Everyone serving in the military (including office staff and cooks) have had their basic military training and are expected to pass tests at the shooting range every year (At least in Sweden, and I assume Finland as well).
The fact that you might see older people running around in gear and with an assault rifle in a military organization is not that strange. They all have to show that they still can handle it every year.

[Daniel Lindfors @BosseBL]

Do you even understand concepts like a resistance movement or guerilla warfare?
Also, you seem to think that war is only about what happens on a front line. The vast majority of a war effort goes into logistics and other stuff that happens behind the front line.
And finally, in these types of war, well over 30% of casualties can be civilians. In some, the majority has been civilians. So it can be argued that if you are not putting down arms and giving up, you are sending your whole population towards a potential death. And no countrys leadership make defense plans that involves giving up.