You’re looking at the Wikipedia too, I guess? It says “fuel”, I assume that means a disgusting smoky burn barrel situation. I’d place it in the same category as peat, where maybe there were cultures that ended up exploiting it for heating and cooking, but anyone with a choice didn’t. You’re definitely not using crude in a nice little oil lantern; that’s why we invented refining in the first place.

To answer my own question, Greek fire and asphalt for paving. Maybe the cost of using a medieval-style alembic or an inability to generate more than two fractions prevented more advanced uses. It sounds like they were close, though. You could write a cool alt-history about that.

I didn’t say no uses, the Natives near where I live liked to seal canoes that way, but without further processing crude oil isn’t a particularly great fuel, for example.

What were the Arabs doing with it? At least in the European empires, lamps weren’t a big use until after the whale oil era.

It’s pretty on-brand for the Talmudic god, honestly.

That’s a bit late for the Talmud. Other ancient sources do at least mention the ground oozing gross oil sometimes, although use was limited without distillation, which also originated with the Arabs.

Removed by mod

It’s literally what happens in the story of Noah.

where does the air go?

Hmm. They had bellows, and knew what air is, so that’s actually a period-appropriate question. Maybe Sheol can be pressurised, or maybe Noah just didn’t notice the air getting thicker.

The rest is just a version of “what’s outside the universe”, which applies to real cosmology too.

(Reasonable genetic diversity not included, fuck your parents or siblings I guess)

Maybe roughly the size of the Titanic, in cubits.

I mean, Ancient Hebrew knowledge of the water cycle was non-existent, because of course it was. They also reference springs just kind of bringing up ocean water for no reason like depicted in this. This isn’t like when they say “40” to mean a lot, and people claiming otherwise are probably selling something.

It was ðat English letter’s stated purpose to make a dental fricative sound, and I guess OP wants to bring it back. Which, honestly, would be cool.

She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.

She sets about her work vigorously; her arms are strong for her tasks.

She sees that her trading is profitable, and her lamp does not go out at night.

You sure you copy-pasted the right verse number from whatever?

Yes. I think it’s about thinking patriarchy is bad. Almost always that implies preferring equality; the manosphere dudes massively overblow the support for matriarchy. I’m honestly not sure if I would include equality in the definition or not, because of how little that distinction matters in practice.

I should also include that I think patriarchy is real (because anything else is flat-Earth tier, look at Afghanistan), and that many remnants of it still exist in the West. Sometimes people who oppose something they call feminism claim that there’s not.

People are really fed up with politics and electing more and more nationalistic/extremist politicians because they don’t feel represented. The economical crysis and this dissatisfaction is an environment very similar to when hitler got elected. Last time we had millions of people dying and europe being destroyed, what will it take today to remove a dictatorship in the biggest military spender of the world?

All true. I was really making the fine distinction between “everything is awful forever because AI” and “everything is still awful”.

It’s not even clear which technologies are driving the backsliding, if any. The early thought was that everyone was radicalising in a social media bubble, but then research showed being in a bubble actually promotes moderation, so that’s out. It’s also not just economics.

We have AI possibly disrupting a lot of the service economy, while automation is slowly eating away the manual workers jobs, possibly resulting in mass unemployment.

See, the service industry has legit uses of AI. Those won’t go away, the same way people were still doing tons on the internet through the 'oughts and eventually internet businesses did become huge. Any discipline where the stakes aren’t close to zero or where training on the internet can’t help much will be less effected. Non-AI automation and backlash against it has been ongoing since the 1700’s, so I’ll put that in the situation-normal category.

Who is going to save the US if it slides into dictatorship?

It’s kind of a tangent after all that, but nobody, and it doesn’t seem like just “if” at this point. I’m hoping to head off expansionism into my nation and not much else at this point. Maybe rescue a bunch of the good Americans.

Yes, you’re technically right, that’s at least what I was trying to say. “Linear” and “everything is in a multiplicative relation” are really close in my head, though, so I made a mistake.

Isn’t that what happened?

I don’t believe for a second OP actually cared about my emotional motives for continuing or not. It was a probably a strategy, honestly, although I tried to be nice and assume wasting my time wasn’t the main plan.

Depending how demanding the “real” website would be in comparison. I doubt the answer is millions.

The one service I regularly see using something like this is Invidious. I can totally get how even a bit of bot traffic would make the host’s life really hard.

It’s true a captcha would achieve something similar, if we assume a captcha-solving AI has a certain minimum cost. That means typical users will have to do a lot more work, though, which is why creepy things like Cloudflare have become popular, and I’m not sure what the advantages are.

Well, that’s a typically abstract, to-the-letter take on the definition of software freedom from them. I think the practical necessity of doing something like this, especially for services like Invidious that are at risk, and the fact it’s a harmless nonsense calculation really deserves an exception.

There’s heavy, and then there’s heavy. I don’t have any experience dealing with threats like this myself, so I can’t comment on what’s most common, but we’re talking about potentially millions of times more resources for the attacker than the defender here.

There is a lot of AI hype and AI anti-hype right now, that’s true.

I am pretty curious why a moral nihilist would bother with taking a contrarian side to geopolitics like this. Why not just parrot the local boo-rah jerk and profit, or avoid politics altogether for minimum stress?

But, you want to stop. Interestingly, you’ve tried to couch that in a reverse-psychology way that makes me do it for you, which is weirdly bashful again.

Fighting about if I want to fight would be a waste of my time, and I don’t have any problem doing this for you. Disengage.

If a request is taking a full minute of user CPU time, it’s one hell of a mitigation, and anybody who’s not a major corporation or government isn’t going to shrug it off.