Corporate politics doesn’t adequately punish the traits narcissists and sociopaths present. Quite the contrary, those traits can easily become assets in their careers.
Exactly. It's an evolutionarily beneficial trait. We're no longer competing with other species (why social traits developed), we're competing against each other (where the right amount of anti-social traits works best).
It doesn't have built-in storage, but that doesn't mean it can't connect to external storage, or that its memory cannot be retrieved from a front-end computer.
> Because nothing says "I live dangerously" like writing your 6502 assembly in memory with the mini assembler without saving, then letting your little brother near the keyboard.
RESET on the Apple II was a warm reset. You could set a value on page zero so that pressing it caused a cold start (many apps did that), but, even then, the memory is not fully erased on startup, so you'd probably be kind of OK.
which makes no sense on it’s face, as as evolution (and nature itself) is fundamentally competitive. you might as well say we should ‘compile ourselves past compilers’.
Artificial selection need not be competitive in the same way that natural selection is. And even if it were, competition between genes doesn't necessarily equate to competition between individuals.
And certainly there is no competitive or evolutionary advantage for one person (or geneset) to convince a naive group of individuals that is what is going on while they pull the strings in the background.
Or a person or set of individuals to pretend to be going along with said program (if said program is honest) while actually abusing/manipulating the program to benefit them eh? [https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/late...] among dozens (hundreds?) of others.
Competitive societies have more and more serious mental health issues. What program are you referring to? When I mentioned evolving past competition, I didn't say anything about gene-based evolution, but social evolution, where we consciously place a higher value on cooperation over competition.
Gene based evolution is constant. There is no way to avoid it; any more than it’s possible to avoid a compiler (somewhere) for any decent sized computer program, even if you’re writing in Python.
So what you’re describing is not what you think you’re describing at all.
Those ‘non-competitive’ societies are actually just those where the competition has been decided through structural elements which are not currently being contested to the same extent. Because someone either ‘won’ the war already, or the ‘war’ is more subtle and manipulative rather than being out in the open.
If you happen to be on the ‘winning’ side of that war, then that looks great. If you’re on the losing side, you won’t get much of a chance to notice or fight about it. And what cannot be ‘seen’, ‘doesn’t exist’.
War, after all, only can occur when someone is able to actually fight - and can see a reason to want to.
Because in either one, someone is making the choices (explicitly, or implicitly!) which decide whose genes actually end up spreading.
Complaining about mental health issues in competitive societies is like complaining about people getting maimed in war. And if people just stopped trying to fight back, then hey, world peace! (Once whatever Emperor conquered first won, of course)
Society is the increasingly abstract and confusing game we build on top of all this so we’re not all writing the equivalent of assembly - aka Ghenghis Khan’ng each other. But it’s all the same at the end of the day - the computer (aka reality) runs whatever instructions gets spit out (aka genes). And whoever decides that, ‘wins’.
Okay. But if social norms lead to almost everyone mating randomly and couples having the same number of kids on average, then what happens to genetic evolution?
The advancement and flourishing of the human species. But that's beside the point. What rbanffy suggests might be absurd, but not because it somehow violates the laws of biology.
I don’t see any point in human history where what is being described matches any stable human behavior. So while not impossible, it is probably unlikely eh?
And think of what that would actually mean, and if you’d even want it - you’d be as likely to match up with a random Chinese 60 year old, or a 13 year old African tribe member, or 30 something European (while being one of those other two) or whatever.
I can’t think of any sane person that would be willing to mate with someone truly randomly. And if it wasn’t truly random, who gets to decide on the criteria? Because that is exactly where the moral hazard comes in.
It was a daisy wheel printer. No graphics, but "letter quality".
> Back then, using audio tapes to hold data was revolutionary, in terms of storage space and price.
Those aren't ordinary cassettes - while it is possible to make an Adam cassette out of a normal audio cassette, it's a somewhat involved process. There was hardware sold back then to do it, as the Adam itself couldn't.
I don't think so. Dot matrix covers the niches where impact printers make sense and laser and inkjets cover those where they don't. There might be someone making typewriters, but I don't think any of those can be (easily) used as a printer.
I'm looking into converting one into a teletype by doing a MITM between keyboard and logic board.
>> Back then, using audio tapes to hold data was revolutionary, in terms of storage space and price.
> Those aren't ordinary cassettes
Years earlier, my Color Computer (from that other leather company, Tandy) was reading and writing to ordinary cassettes (also sold by Radio Shack).
The folks I knew who could afford Apple IIs had the cash to spend on floppy drives but I think their computers supported cassettes.
I had friends in pre-Adam days who had Commodores and one with a TI-99, all of which had plain old cassette storage, too. In the 70s-80s that was slow but affordable. This was anything but revolutionary for the Adam.
reply