I do not get what makes this post so popular. Google Maps is often better and uses automatically extracted features from photogrammetry. Eh. 350 points at most.
For me on Firefox on macOS that is just a couple of key strokes away:
cmd-l cmd-c ctrl-a r <space> u r l : <enter> cmd-t cmd-v ctrl-a h n <enter>
I have set up `r` as keyword to search on Reddit and `hn` to search on Hacker News [1]. `url:` is the Reddit keyword to search in the url field of the items. (In Firefox, you can right click any search field and add a keyword bookmark for it.)
The greatest danger to Civilization, in my not-so-humble opinion is tribalism. My country is better. My religion. My political philosophy. My color. My sex. My gender.
And I'll riot and kill if you don't agree.
Capitalism? Socialism? AI? Those won't overcome the stupidity of large populations of humans.
Counterpoint: tribalism is what makes us do great things. The US went to space because we wanted to beat Russia. Spain re-discovered America because they wanted to beat the Portuguese. Rome built an empire because they wanted Romans to be wealthier, stronger, more civilized than everyone else.
I like to think of ancient China as the counter-example. China built a huge, self-sufficient empire. It had almost everything it needed and a stable trade network for the few things it didn't. It was well-protected by natural borders and had a large army for keeping the peace. It developed enough technology to lend it's people a relatively good standard of living. The end result was that China stagnated and lost the ~2,000 year head start they had over Europeans. China's goal was to provide stability, and it did that very well, at the cost of progress.
Tribalism has been around for the entire course of civilization, and has decreased over time since we got the idea that it's a bad thing. So if civilization seems like it's in trouble now then it seems unlikely that tribalism is the cause.
Tribalism is not a bad thing, neither is nationalism, it is only a problem when it turns sour. Just like everything else. It's horribly limiting to think in only black and white.
It's like you didn't read the comment you're replying to. You do not have good evidence that romance is shaped by evolutionary, rather than cultural, forces. Of course there's a biological motivation for procreation but unless you're going to play semantic games and define "romance" as any activity involved in pursuit of procreation, that motivation doesn't explain specific behaviors.
"It" being a biological basis for romantic behavior? We've survived this long without know how, or if, biology determines our current romantic behavior, I think we'll be okay. We're not going to go extinct because everyone is fucking robots.
Humans have existed a lot longer than science or the contemplation of nature vs. nurture.
> no evidence of the opposite
There's plenty of evidence that romantic behavior is culturally determined. Just look at how much it has changed over the centuries even though, biologically, humans have hardly changed at all. There's also the wide variance between cultures geographically in which we're all biologically the same.
That's probably only a problem if it is must faster than everbody else.
> let alone faster than what happens in our environment
That is often not very hard. When a bottle rolls off the table, you can catch it by approximately predicting it's trajectory without computing the precise evolution of the ~10^26 atoms that make up the water bottle. Compression is a corner stone of intelligence. The second corner stone is using compression to choose actions that maximize expected cumulative future reward.
