>But the two of us can’t decide the fairest way!

Because fair means different things to different people in different contexts.

And we cannot decide for you how you see your partner. Could be a traditional arrangement where in the long term one of the two earns the money and the other does the household. In that case usually, you would go for community of goods (excepting preexisting wealth, inheritance and gifts received but including new income and capital gains also on preexisting wealth)

Or could be roommates who hookup but live separate lives at the other extreme. then don't share wealth, but we cannot tell you.

You are confused because you didn't decide what your plans and lifestyle will be for the long term.

Decide this and the financial questions will answer themselves.

But you could also find out that you have incompatible visions, finances have this nasty habit of not allowing you to remain in denial about such possible incompatibilities.

Sure that this is not your hardware clientside?

Is it possible that you have an advanced degree yourself?

Because, yes, it cannot yet do what people with advanced degrees can.

But remember how clueless we were in highschool...

No no, the computers are just becoming so good that you cannot ask questions in highschool that a computer cannot answer, or otherwise you doom every student except the rare gifted one to failure

Of course there is. A 6 year old has bodily autonomy.

Yet I'm not forced to donate organs to save them.

yes, but you are not vertically climbing there, you are not linearly penalized for your weight

and rowing is also about amplitude

>The heavier you are the more power you need to produce to offset the extra weight (and therefore drag) you bring to the boat

Yes , but it's water and it's flat, not cycling uphill etc., this is easily compensated by how much easier it is to be powerful when you're heavier.

Rowing also favors size

>The Chinese Room Argument is an argument against the idea that a machine could ever be truly intelligent. It is based on the idea that intelligence requires understanding, and that following rules is not the same as understanding.

You're always following rules, just different ones.

For example you can also remember that on a road bike

• small levers shift to small gears
• big levers shift to big gears

you are following rules, but it's a parsimonious representation, easy to remember and intuitive

most people would call that more intelligent than to remember

• small right leaver makes driving harder
• big right lever makes driving easier
• small left leaver makes driving easier
• big left leaver makes driving harder

It's more wasteful to remember it like this, counterintuitive, but is it qualitatively something completely different than the other way?

But is there an opensource one?

Leela also didn't do much differently than alpha zero, but still...

This sounds like an argument where if you take it literally, then there is nobody opposing it

Because of course once you define an objective function like "maximize wellbeing" then science (and the humanities, which in Germany would just be called sciences btw) can give lots of input about how to achieve that.

If you take the argument more like it was meant, then it becomes a bit more controversial, because what it really says is

>It's a no-brainer that wellbeing is the objective of ethics/morality, it's just defined like this. Everybody is consequentialist, some people just don't admit it.
>
>And because that point, which philosophers deem to be the heart of the debate, is trivially solved, then the real debate about how to reach wellbeing is to a large part answered by science.

>The reason these kinds of statements are empty platitudes is because people like Singer aren't saying individuals should be
>
>required
>
>to alleviate the world's poverty, through enforceable laws or policies, but rather they should
>
>choose
>
>to alleviate the world's poverty, freely, which of course many won't do

Lawmakers are people too.

Acts to vote for new laws are acts just like following those laws are acts and like doing charity despite the absence of such laws are acts as well.

Rule utilitarianism is the default unless explicitly stated otherwise. Because you would need to justify why of all possible actions, those who consist of establishing rules should be set out of scope. They are just actions that need to be assessed by their expected consequences, like all other actions.