Well I'm already changing the way I work to use my brain on what AI can't do well, and letting AI do what it can do well. I haven't spent time thinking about how to change the world, and I don't exactly have that time, but I'll support left leaning parties that focus on integrating with the change rather than forbidding it.

The most essential thing in my opinion is a UBI. For decades we've been automating jobs away. Unemployment is no longer a problem because of economic troubles, it's a problem because we're using automation to increase production rather than improve people's lives. The most essential thing, in my opinion, is shifting the way we think about work from "you must work to survive" to "you are surviving by default, you can work to improve your life".

Then the second thing is education. But, I am very opinionated and might be wrong. I find the whole system, in every country that I know of, so antiquated. It is the one thing in our lives that has barely changed in centuries. Exam-driven education does not work. Brilliant, mostly neurodivergent minds (which are much more common than we used to think) are excluded from success because of it. AI won't replace passion, students use AI because they dislike what they do. We as a species are not lazy, we're just great at doing things that we love. Stop hammering students with exams, start letting them choose earlier on what they study, and they'll stop using AI to offload everything.

That's a subjective observation. Most people have no problem understanding a word that has different meanings (so, almost every single word) based on context.

Anyway, this has been fun but I'm all out of time to waste on you! Good luck to you :)

Why would I? I'm not the emotional one here :)

Not fully yet, but heading there head first, yep

Do you think only big studios make games that need an internet connection? Or why is this comment relevant?

My focus isn't on which type of energy is cheapest. An energy grid that is not predictable is worthless. Wiknd power, solar power, are great complements, but a grid using only those is not viable. Hydroelectric is great, but limited. Geothermal is not really viable in mainland Europe.

I'm worried about a realistic transition from fossile fuels to non fossile fuels. Nuclear is realistic, renewable as a main source in Europe is utopic and unrealistic.

No, what are you talking about? A nuclear power plant takes less than a decade to build.

Renewable energy at the scale of a country is impossible to achieve in such a short time in Europe. We dont have huge geothermal taps, which countries having achieved 100% renewable energy have, and we consume a lot more energy.

Cheaper is great, but it's not continuous, it's not scaleable in a short period of time, and requires a fuckton more maintainance capability than a dozen nuclear power plants.

I will reiterate: A full renewable energy grid in Europe is impossible with our current tech, especially in a reasonable timeframe. That's why instead of solar power plants, countries prefer to subsidies local, individual solar panel installations, for instance.

It's not a perfect solution, and ideally we would all be on renewable, I am not disagreeing with you there.

But a full renewable grid in Europe is simply not realistic with the tech we have now. A full nuclear grid is.

Keep researching renewable and nuclear (fusion would be the ideal option, even above renewable), but use the best we have now.

We have uranium in Europe. But we can also import it from many countries all around the globe, ao strategically much more diversified than rare materials needed for renewable.

Educate new professionals. Build them securely, not fastly. Still a better time perspective than a full renewable switch. Plants will always be easy targets, nuclear or not. Modern plants do not catastrophically fail like Chernobyl. Do yoh really think France has not thought of the security implications with their plants all over the country?

Now for nuclear waste... Yeah, it's a problem. Also being researched. But it is little waste. It's manageable until we have the right renewable tech or nuclear fusion.

As for the cost, again, it is expensive upfront, cheap to operate, cost efficient to renew.

The definition of E2EE has evolved since the concept surfaced. You seem to be stuck with the original meaning.

TLS does not fit the modern definition.

A meme template can be used in different ways than its first user originally intended, doesn't make it wrong... If it's funny, it works. The end.

Not a single part of your answer is about how the brain works.

Concepts are not things in your brain.

Consciousness is a concept. It doesn't exist in your brain.

Thinking is how a human uses their brain.

I'm asking about how the brain itself functions to intepret natural language.

Ah yes, protect the great american companies of the 17th century