Given that neither company releases parameter counts, that sort of information would be slow coming out anyway. The most important thing is improvements in actual performance/ benchmark numbers, which allow them to preserve their price points as much as possible.

(my personal opinion is that psychedelics are or can be of great therapeutic benefit, but the MAPS/Lykos clinical trial was definitely problematic.)

Maybe I should have recognized this earlier, but I really like this point and feel it adds depth- whether or not the screenwriters or Ridley Scott even intended it. It's not necessary for this to be the case for Batty to spare Deckard, it's also possible that recognizing his end was near he wanted to pass something on and/or communicate his life in some way to another.

Within the context of a big budget Hollywood sci-fi actioner, I think it's about as reasonably deep as you could expect. None of its ideas are profound or new, but the cinematography and set design were.

This makes sense with replicants who know they are replicants and are trying to avoid detection (I'm not sure why they would ever be 'programmed' to try to fake detection, the simpler explanation is that they know what the test is and are trying to avoid identification and death.) But it's different for Rachel. She thinks she is human and wouldn't be trying to game the test, yet it takes a long time for Deckard to assess her. So why is that? Either way...

...leading one to suspect that the Voight-Kampff test may not be measuring pure, unadulterated empathy in quite the way everyone seems to think it is....But in Ridley Scott’s preferred version of the film, the central theme falls apart, to be replaced with psychological horror’s equivalent of a jump scare: “Deckard himself is really a replicant, dude! What a mind fuck, huh?"

Those 2 statements contradict themselves, because Deckard himself being a replicant (who actually is never tested himself anyway) is an extension of blurring the lines between human and replicant, and what the Voight-Kampff test actually is testing (which already happens when Deckard tests Rachel.)

I feel like the idea of next-gen replicants like Rachel (and possibly Deckard) that blur the lines further is thematically consistent with the rest of the movie. I don't know what kind of social life Rachel has led, but if she has any friends or social interaction at all some sort of empathy would be needed to pass off as human. These kind of things are not explicit in the movie, which I think is mostly fine as the movie is more about the big picture of what makes us 'human', or what that even means ethically or experientially. The early replicants are basically psychotic so it's easy to have no ethical concerns about them even if they have agency and consciousness. But then what about succeeding versions that do come closer and closer to experiencing regular human existence?

I have only been vegetarian for a short while, and was previously a long time meat lover. I don't need meat substitutes in my life (oyster and king mushrooms are a big love of mine now) and they will never be a basic staple, but it is nice to have the option. If you're at or having a BBQ, it's easy to also grill an Impossible burger for example. I used to love sushi and will occasionally surrender to a spicy scallop roll or something like that, so appreciate having vegan options.

My main reason for becoming a vegetarian is avoiding industrial farming as much as possible, with probably sustainability being the second factor. I don't have an ethical objection to humanely raised (or wild) and humanely slaughtered meat, there are some good sources for that although I don't generally find myself seeking them out.

> "So my first psychedelic experience was when I was 20 years old in in Amsterdam. I took mushrooms and I had a hell of a trip like because I wasn't aware of dosages and don't know what type of dosage I took."

And then a few years later we get to this-

> "I was planning to do an ayahuasca retreat in Peru, and a friend of mine said why not smoke DMT here. I didn't know that I was doing one of the strongest psychedelics on earth. I didn't have any preparation."

Like I said I really do feel for the guy and hopes he finds resolution, but what was he thinking? I also hope lots of people read his story.

I also think that 'net-zero trauma' poster/slide is pretty cringey. Like you said, it's not that simple.

This one though is at least somewhat of a double-edged sword, as it's not a 100% given that the team's kicker will make a field goal (probably around 90-95% success rate.)

--------------------------------------------

No match could end in a draw; if the teams were tied at the end of regular time, they would go into sudden death extra time. But! Any goal scored in extra time would count as two goals. This was presumably done because this tournament, like many, used goal difference to break ties in the qualifying groups. (Goal difference = total number of goals they’ve scored minus the number of goals they’ve conceded.) So that extra time “golden goal” would give a team an edge in the overall competition. Little did the organisers know that it would also lead to one of the strangest football games ever seen.

--------------------------------------------

Such a rule has no impact within a game, it doesn't change the basic premise that a tie game goes to sudden death and next goal wins. But potentially weird scenarios are actually pretty easy to think of if you just consider the rule for a couple of minutes.

> BlackBerry has everything Apple's Tetris film lacked: human drama grounded in actual history, without the need to spice things up with car chases and fantastical storytelling. On the face of it, the rise and fall of Research in Motion's keyboard-equipped smartphone may not seem inherently compelling. But the brilliance of the film — directed by Matt Johnson, who also co-wrote it with Matthew Miller — is that it makes the BlackBerry's journey feel like a genuine tragedy.

The stigma of using a coupon didn't bother me so much, most restaurant servers were always cool about redeeming them (and of course I always tipped on the pre-Groupon bill.) But I would sometimes get an (unintentional) negative vibe from higher ups, like great another money-losing customer that I'll never see again. That reaction is what discouraged me from using Groupon, if it just ends up generally being a bad proposition for businesses I'd rather just avoid the whole thing.

Oh man, this reminds me I still have a much of credit at Restaurant.com, which I stopped using a few years ago too...