Not buying this at all. This view is completely at odds against multicellular organisms that can literally clone themselves.

Everything we know about aging so far points towards the deterioration of renewal mechanisms that keeps our system functional. Cells die due to a host of reasons besides programming. For example, they may become non-functional and eliminated by the immune system.

Fair criticism and I see your point. Perhaps making this as one of the optional defaults writing styles (amongst others) would be better.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Technical_English

2. https://asd-ste100.org/

They don't have to. Open up the platform for linux and custom OS.

That much is obvious. The question is how they get around sabre tooth without being a major obstruction to bite pieces of meat off.

As for the other animals, Elephants mostly use their trunks to put food in their mouths. Pigs, their teeth are not that huge comparatively speaking and less of an obstruction, plus the have a very long snouts. Walruses, I have no idea how they manage to feed either.

Is that actually true? If you observe domestic cats feeding, they chew a lot. Small fragments at a time and chew the crap out of it. Whether that's also true for big cats, i don't know.

I would argue that high frequency information is not missing in a blurred image, rather it's spread out spatially. Every sample in the blurred image is a convolution of multiple samples (i.e. high frequency data) from the originating source. Theoretically, it should be invertible, provided the exact function is known that does the convolution, but there are practical limitations, such as knowing how to apply the inverse operations at the edges and dealing with the extreme sensitivity to errors.

Really? This does not reflect my experience at all. I've been using the Beaver plugin and also Claude Code, and they have been spot on.

As mentoned somewhere else, zotero's metadata retrieval is like 50% hit/miss in my experience - as in for the papers i've imported it was able to ID about half of them. An the quality of that data is not that great either. Lots of OCR errors, sparse bibtext fields, author names wrong, etc.

I'm a graphics programmer, i keep a lot of journals for research, and i needed the least painless method to get them sorted. Even if, say 1% is misclassified or has wrong metadata, it will not impact what I do the least bit. And those can be corrected with ease.

I'm on version 9. I did the drag and drop for some of the files, but Zotero has only like 50% hit rate with finding the correct bibtex, and those are not that high quality either. People talk about hallucinations using LLMs, but I found them to be more reliable and produces richer metadata than Zotero's system. You can even use the Beaver plugin to correct the metadata, if you find them dubious or low quality.

>All it takes is a single hallucinated reference, and your career would be forever tainted.

Of any references I use, I always read the PDFs. The entire point of me using Zotero is to manage PDFs and being able to read them. If the title and author data in the item view don't match the PDFs then it's easy to notice. And even if i get the reference wrong, i'm not worried about my career, because it wouldn't matter.

I find this question rather sad.

I would even go further: HTML should never have supported scripting.