> This is an article that only cites Zitron’s opinions about subjective model quality. You’re tisk-tisking people to be objective about a bunch of words saying that the author’s opinions are better opinions than the guy he’s talking about OP
Oh it's not just the author's opinions. They're the opinions of a bunch of LLMs he checked, too. Much better.
> Europeans would be far less likely to tip (or tip generously).
Southern europeans tip, there wouldn't be much difference there
Northern ones it depends, they don't tip at home but they usually do on vacations to southern europe (where tipping culture very much exists). Though some of that also has to do with currency conversions, at least historically, even if the tradition has stuck past the euro being introduced. So maybe that's why they don't tip when it comes to dollars?
Deeply ironic that it sure looks like taking the original post, pasting it to an AI with the message "make this angrier" and then simply copy-pasting the output back to the website. In direct violation of their own (supposed) principles.
And the result isn't even very angry at all. It's like mildly peeved internal company communication (also in direct violation of "don't send this to your manager")
I actually wrote it all myself... The original version was the angrier one only, but people complained that it was too angry, so I tried to smooth it out with another version people could use.
Yeah looking at the repo it's clear the entire thing is sloppified. I don't know what point the creator is trying to make but sincerity on being human isn't it.
> In doing so, the article perhaps obscures the point that business collusion, I expect, is more often built around legitimate reasoning taken to illegitimate extents and conclusions, than around outright fabrications.
It also doesn't quite come around to the idea of something you might call "convenient" obsolescence. Not planned, not actively colluded to happen (the Phoebus cartel did do this, but are one of few examples), but very convenient for the manufacturer when optimizing for other factors (mostly cost) instead of lifespan.
> Yeah, that kinda dark pattern / malicious compliance junk ought to be straight up illegal.
It is illegal.
> To comply with the regulations governing cookies under the GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive you must:
> [...]
> - Allow users to access your service even if they refuse to allow the use of certain cookies
> - Make it as easy for users to withdraw their consent as it was for them to give their consent in the first place.
7 clicks is not as easy as one "accept all", violating the last point. Not allowing you to dismiss the banner and access the site violates the other point.
I have seen a few occasional sites that are even worse than this one.. Not only don't you get a reject all, you get two classes of settings, the default "types", and "trusted partners", and for trusted partners, about a third of them have what's called "legitimate interest" turned on, which means "we legitimately think we can share your data with this people after leading you to believe we haven't, and that's ok", and there are a hundred or more partners you have to scroll through and disable this for
> Astronomers have pretty good terminology for stars,
...do they though?
The "proper" terminology says all main sequence stars are dwarves, but nobody calls them all that in practice.
Some astronomers insist on saying "yellow dwarf", but some don't really bother.
In general having the only two kinds of star be "giant" or "dwarf" is contentious, but it's also contentious that there isn't a name for whatever is in the "middle". "Main-sequence star" is a broader category and doesn't apply. They're all "stars", obviously, so that isn't specific enough.
The only decent terminology is for the spectral classes, but those only work as long as you look at spectra. The moment you try to figure out what the theory says those stars would look like as proper 3D objects, things get very messy. You also immediately get the issue that star size and brightness goes O>B>A>F>G>K>M. So... it's alphabetic except it isn't. And C is something completely different and doesn't fit the brightness classification at all.
Actually, that is the IAU stance. And their definition for exoplanet includes small, non-rounded objects orbiting stars which would be asteroids (or comets or whatever) if they happened to be around the Sun.
All that debacle around dwarf planets to prepare for future observations, and yet the distinction ceases to apply the moment you go outside the Oort cloud...
But really, that's just the naming systems being bad, obviously common people don't think asteroids around other stars are "exoplanets" or should be called that way
I'm not talking about edge cases like asteroids or planetoids or dwarf planets. I'm talking about actual planets. Like a gas giant orbiting a star. It's obviously a planet even if it's not orbiting Sol.
As the easiest to discover exoplanets (and all the early ones except pulsar planets) are gas giants, and the comment I was directly replying to had "Like a gas giant orbiting a star. It's obviously a planet", therefore "gas giants are failed stars and shouldn't count as planets" is not at all irrelevant.
Even further up to the point of if these are or are not cell, it illustrates how taxonomical categories are made by humans for humans. Historically, any connection to natural laws in taxonomies is often mere coincidence.
They're not very toxic, but my experience is that it's a small, elite community and they're very good at the game.
You're going to have to go all in on learning the game, putting in massive effort into every game just to keep up, and will still probably lose most games. I just don't have it in me to play that kind of competitive RTS game like you're trying to climb the SC2 ladder to the top during peak Heart of the Swarm playercounts or whatever, so FAF multiplayer was a no-go.
Fully second doing some learning. A lot of the critical 'meta' is fairly basic. Factory first, don't stall energy, reclaim wins games, commander strong early.
Also if you see me(same username) online and are starting out, feel free to reach out over the FAF chat system, for some simple coaching. Game gets a lot easier after some of the meta is learned. I can't garentee I'll even respond, but I would hate for someone to bounce off due to the learning curve.
> Leading on from that, the staff are the most dangerous. My daughter has had generated exercises provided to her from multiple teachers, which are quite frankly entirely wrong. This was hilariously pointed out after I called a meeting with her mathematics teacher over it. They questioned my knowledge on the matter with the insane assumption that "AI is foolproof". I had to hit them with a clue stick then.
They have also been explicitly told by the department of education to NOT do this, but it hasn't stopped lazy teachers all over. Apparently not doing your job, in direct contradiction to your given rules, is ok because "it's the future".
Pretty much what this blog post says: https://hermit-tech.com/blog/ai-mania-is-eviscerating-global...
It seems pretty bad, no doubt about it