bstix

Do they have to agree on the answer?

If not, then you can add their experiences. They'll share some but it's a net plus.

If they do have to agree, then they can only answer when they have shared experiences, in which case it'd be a net negative.

It's basically two arrays of binary numbers, either they know something or they don't, and then you can do boolean algebra to get the kind of answer you want.

In reality you will encounter both situations, and by using dialogue, you can sort out the differences and achieve a higher rate of correct answers.

This way, two idiots can indeed answer more correctly than one expert. However it's required that the idiots are aware of their own shortcomings.

The history of denazifying Germany shows that the Allies were torn on this.

To summerize:

Russia "Okay, let's kill all the Germans."
Britain "Oh, but then we're no better than them. We must make due process for all the Nazis."
USA "Yeah, I don't think either of you understand the scale of this."

And the Americans was right. A due process would have taken centuries, and nobody wanted to pay for it.

So that's why the Nuremberg trials only reached the top of the iceberg and millions of Nazis got away with no other punishment than memories of shame.

Rabbit Hole:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Malawi

It's lice. You get 300 million lice.

Now, can you build the potato clocked, huh?

I usually refrain myself from commenting on other people's appearances, because God knows I was last in queue, but when someone goes out of their way, and spends lots of money to look like a clown, it's only fair for them and everyone else to laugh at them.

Plastic doesn't age well I see.

She's 54. Act like it.

Lemmy is too small for it to make sense. I can easily read through all threads all the way through the controversial posts and still run out of content daily.

It made sense on Reddit, where accounts could be worth money and/or used for advertising, or some people thought karma points was worth it, or that posts there had influence, which they did for a while. The Unidan affair was only about votes, and showed how a single user manipulated the majority of readers into something that was WRONG ON THE INTERNET, which should be a crime.

Finally there's also people who view everything as a competition and just want the high score in that imaginary game. Endorphins or something. I'll admit that I have a longer streak than necessary in some apps too, but I'm no cheater. I wouldn't get my high off that anyway.

I rarely downvote, but then again, every upvote is like downvoting everyone else, and I surely don't want to upvote everything.

Maybe this is the 1st. iteration of design, still being copied because nobody bothers making a new design.

People also still say "hello" when they answer the telephone. That's even older.

They used muzzle loaded cannons at his time, so it makes sense. It's not only for direction, but for faster rate of fire.

Well done.

No, you're not. The internet is unsurprisingly full of people being annoyed with just that.

The most valid explanation is that quotation marks used to mean something else. Before we had bold and italics and underscores, typographers would sometimes use quotation marks for emphasis. This kind of ancient mark-up language can be seen in advertising up until the 1950s or so. It is considered to be wrong now.

Yes. The previous poster's map appears to be from Google's satellite images. They don't photograph the sea, so the water that is photographed around land looks darker than the sea.