What are you implying here? The answer to the nature vs. nurture debate is "both", see "epigenetics" for more.
When considering the influence of a parent with morally reprehensible behavior, it's important to recognize that the environment a child grows up in can indeed have a profound impact on their development. Children raised in households where unethical behaviors are normalized may adopt some of these behaviors themselves, either through direct imitation or as a response to the emotional and psychological environment. However, it is equally possible for individuals to reject these influences.
Furthermore, while acknowledging the potential impact of a negative upbringing, it is critical to avoid deterministic assumptions about individuals. People are not simply products of their environment; they possess agency and the capacity for change, and we need to realize that not all individuals perceive and respond to environmental stimuli in the same way. Personal experiences, cognitive processes, and emotional responses can lead to different interpretations and reactions to similar environmental conditions. Therefore, while the influence of a parent's actions cannot be dismissed, it is neither fair nor accurate to presume that an individual will inevitably follow in their footsteps.
As for epigenetics: it highlights how environmental factors can influence gene expression, adding a layer of complexity to how we understand the interaction between genes and environment. While the environment can modify gene expression, individuals may exhibit different levels of susceptibility or resistance to these changes based on genetic variability.
> However, it is equally possible for individuals to reject these influences.
The crux of your thesis is a legal point of view, not a scientific one. It's a relic from when Natural Philosophy was new and hip, and fundamentally obviated by leaded gasoline. Discussing free will in a biological context is meaningless because the concept is defined by social coercion. It's the opposite of slavery.
I am pretty sure that I have implemented a lot of functions before that would be almost (or completely) identical (not including variable names, indentation, etc.) to that of someone else's work. The smaller the function, the more likely it seems to be true, and some programming languages encourage you to write concise functions.
But to get AI to write you a working solution, more often than not you are supposed to understand the problem at hand along with possible solutions, right?
Same in Hungarian, they are usually written as a single word if the components together create a specific meaning or form a distinct conceptual unit, which is distinct from the individual meanings of the words.
For instance, "autógyár" (car factory) is a compound word made up of "autó" (car) and "gyár" (factory).
Example in Dutch: you can say "losgeld" (literally: loosemoney, money that loosens/releases something; specifically: ransom) but you can also say "los geld" (loose money) which is like spare coins you have in your pocket or so.
In 2020, a supermarket requested that people don't pay with losgeld but by card instead, so they meant to say "please don't pay with cash" but they said "please don't pay with ransom"
Most of the time you have to add a keyword as to what it is related. We cannot expect everything to have unique names, unless we are perfectly fine with random pronounceable strings as names.
And that is 8 hours a day. 12 hours long shifts are extremely common around here, with only 1 weekend free in a month. Sure, office jobs are mostly 8 hours long, but the rest are 12 hours, and there is a LOT of those kind of jobs. Overtime hours are typically not paid either.
It reminds me of rumors. Unverified information heard or received from another. How is this any different? Videos, photos, and sounds need to be verified, too. I remember back then when you looked at a photo and you could tell with 99% certainty it is legitimate though, but regardless, the deepfake videos do not have to be believed... or hearsay distrusted by people. We might just start defaulting to disbelief.
When considering the influence of a parent with morally reprehensible behavior, it's important to recognize that the environment a child grows up in can indeed have a profound impact on their development. Children raised in households where unethical behaviors are normalized may adopt some of these behaviors themselves, either through direct imitation or as a response to the emotional and psychological environment. However, it is equally possible for individuals to reject these influences.
Furthermore, while acknowledging the potential impact of a negative upbringing, it is critical to avoid deterministic assumptions about individuals. People are not simply products of their environment; they possess agency and the capacity for change, and we need to realize that not all individuals perceive and respond to environmental stimuli in the same way. Personal experiences, cognitive processes, and emotional responses can lead to different interpretations and reactions to similar environmental conditions. Therefore, while the influence of a parent's actions cannot be dismissed, it is neither fair nor accurate to presume that an individual will inevitably follow in their footsteps.
As for epigenetics: it highlights how environmental factors can influence gene expression, adding a layer of complexity to how we understand the interaction between genes and environment. While the environment can modify gene expression, individuals may exhibit different levels of susceptibility or resistance to these changes based on genetic variability.
reply