That's just a wallet glued to your phone though.

Fair enough. You seem to be more knowledgeable about this than me. I get that its an inherent physics thing though I just meant that, theoretically at least, you could simply brute force grip strength in a way that you can't brute force dexterity - at which point it becomes sensible to optimize for dexterity. I guess we're not as close to that point as I assumed though.

Yes, but also this is about robotics so that kind of all goes out the window to some extent. You can just have more powerful actuators to increase grip strength or whatnot. That said, biologically, I'm totally with you on the four arm thing.

While I am by no means terribly well read on the subject it seems to me that at least part of the problem here is probably that the bible isn't, and never really has been, internally consistent. So what exactly are it's statements on the afterlife? It depends on which parts you want to cherry pick and how you want to interpret them. Of course some arguments are stronger than others and some have the backing of one orthodoxy or another at various points in time but there is no one unassailably correct answer (I suspect by design). That's not to disagree with you though, just to interject that it's all sort of nonesense.

And Java isn't short for JavaScript. The joke is that you are passing off 'less prestigious' things (JavaScript or a novella) as 'more prestigious' things (Java or a novel).

It's still founded and based on utter bullshit which doesn't actually work beyond providing a placebo effect, so I'd argue it's actually worse that they get any sort of credibility in that way. A five year degree in baloney is still baloney.

I hear you, but even if I'm presented with the options for voting between getting shot in the foot vs shot in the neck, I'm going to vote for getting shot in the foot so I can have a better chance to fight back. It sucks and is stupid that not getting shot isn't an option presently but voting doesn't have an opportunity cost so voting for a lesser harm is worth it.

Ya, I can not fathom why so much of Lemmy seems to have this inane either/or mindset when it comes to voting and taking other action of any kind as if they were mutually exclusive. The only way I can rationalize it is as a half-assed way of excusing present inaction (because they'll totally take direct action... as soon as someone else starts it) or some kind of stupid moral purity thing. Those are very uncharitable interpretations though so I try not to assume them to be true. I just don't have any other good explanations for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Confucianism

Why not both?

You should probably cut your earlobes off too then, you don't really need them and it's possible they could get infected at some point in your life. And I'm sure you shave your and your children bald regularly, right? You don't need hair and it removes the possibility of lice which can carry blood-born diseases.

Whatever you think needs to be done; absolutely anything ranging from peaceful protest to violent uprising. What exactly are you arguing, that it's best to sit back and take it? That it's better to put you face in the mouth of the leopard eating you rather than your arm so that at least you have a chance of fighting back? Even if one is an accelerationist (a profoundly naive position in my opinion, but that's another discussion) willfully not voting is the intellectually cowardly option, justifying inaction rather than sticking to your ideals and actively voting for the option you believe will accelerate the most. The point is that voting is not a mutually exclusive action to take like so many people on Lemmy seem to act like it is.