The point is that cooking was never criminalised in my analogy, only cooking with mushrooms. I also already wrote why that might be preferable to making the ban on poisonous ingredients

The company I work at has fully embraced vibe coding, so from my experience: it did seem faster at first, but also the amount of regressions and new bugs being introduced has gone up dramatically, and so the overall workflow has stabilised to be roughly just as fast as before AI, but now almost all mental energy is going into QA and reviewing. From the customer perspective, they saw lots of new progress initially, but have now been frustrated by constantly finding things broken or buggy.

And all this is at a company which has entire teams dedicated to trying to improve AI-based workflows and tools to make them more reliable.

So no. From someone in the field, quality has dropped a lot, and speed is only increased if you close your eyes and ignore all the tech-debt being created.

It's more like banning cooking anything with mushrooms in it, because we haven't sorted out which mushrooms are poisonous or not. You could make it more accurate by instead banning cooking with anything poisonous, but of course then lots of people will keep cooking with their mushrooms, naively thinking they are not poisonous and therefore allowed.

100%. The only thing comparing them does is make each look less bad in contrast with the other.

Not only is there no air conditioning, but the average house is really well insulated, which is great in winter but can make it really difficult to cool your house down in this kind of heat

So by the logic that only men can preach because Jesus was a man, do you also enforce the rule that only middle Eastern Jewish carpenters can preach?

If not, then it is clearly possible for people to "stand in" for Jesus when preaching, even without matching his characteristics perfectly. The decision to specifically exclude women based on that one particular characteristic is therefore obviously sexist.

None of the down votes are for the opinion that the service industry requires skill. They are because tipping culture is anti-consumer, anti-worker, predatory and just generally terrible, yet the comment is advocating for it because apparently it works for them personally.

What? Young earth creationists being unscientific??

Maybe god told them in a vision to cause the obesity epidemic

I mean I agree with the sentiment, but the seventh day Adventists were specifically making really low sugar, very bland cereals because they thought that would make people less horny or something. I don't think they are to blame for high sugar content

So shouldn't the same logic dictate that it is not acceptable to kill for culinary satisfaction, if nutrition can be gained without killing a creature? (Which is very possible in most parts of the world)

To me it is pretty clear that it's advertising the protein as plant based (which it is, from the looks of it)

What you calculated are not the chances of the opponent not beating you, you calculated the chance of getting the first hit. But it is the last ship being hit that will make you lose.

Imagine player A using a regular strategy, and B using this stacking strategy. Now imagine that B gets insanely lucky and sinks all of A's ships except their largest one, without missing any at all (while A keeps missing all their shots). So now, even after all that insane luck from player B, who has a better chance of winning? At this point, they both have only 5 spaces which can be hit, and any hit will quickly end the game, so they both have 50% chance to win right?

This means that clearly if B doesn't get insanely lucky in the first turns of the game, then A will have much better chances to win. A's chance to win reduces to it's absolute minimum at 50% when it has only one single 5-length ship left.