They are hard to read because they are written to explain concepts to people who already understand them. Handy if you just need them for reference. Useless if you are trying to learn. Which is why RTFM is often bad advice
- 帖子
- 3
- 评论
- 84
- 加入于
- 3 yr. ago
- 帖子
- 3
- 评论
- 84
- 加入于
- 3 yr. ago
I think when most people say something like “technology is making the world worse” they mean the technology as it actually exists and as it is actually developing, not the abstract sense of possible futures that technology could feasibly deliver.
That is clearly what the author of the piece meant.
If the main focus of people who develop most technology is getting people more addicted to their devices so they are easier to exploit then technology sucks. If the main focus is to generate immoral levels of waste to scam venture capitalists and idiots on the internet then technology sucks. If the main focus is to use technology to monetize every aspect of someone’s existence, then I think it is fair to say that technology, at this point in history, sucks.
Saying “technology is neutral” is not super insightful if, in the present moment, the trend in technological development and its central applications are mostly evil.
Saying “technology is neutral” is worse than unhelpful if, in the present moment, the people who want to use technology to harm others are also using that cliche to justify their antisocial behavior.
I'm no economist, but this seems like a really bad idea.
Federal Agencies make their own rules. That is how the Federal government works. Congress makes a law, usually with enough ambiguity that the federal agency charged with enforcing the law has to make specific interpretations. They make those interpretations, usually under some process that requires public notice and comment, and that interpretation becomes the law in effect. That interpretation can be challenged through a lawsuit, at which point a Judge could overrule the interpretation establishing a new interpretation through judicial review. Until recently, the courts gave a lot of deference to the agency's rule making process because rules are usually written by a combination of lawyers at the agency, and subject matter experts. So, for example if a new law regulating factory safety was passed, and the enforcement of the law was delegated to OSHA, then OSHA lawyers and subject matter experts (like doctors or engineers working for the agency) would make a rule and solicit public comment.
Nothing about this EO can, or pretends to. usurp the power of the judicial system. The AG can make any interpretation they like, it can still be challenged in a Court. And after the Chevron court case, these rulings are easier than ever to challenge.
This does not extend to the Judicial branch. It only applies to the Executive branch. You can read the EO yourself to see that fact.
This is bad because it is trying to exert control over independent agencies, and pretty stupid because there is something like 5000 final rules and proposed rules in the Federal Register last year, so if this were seriously implemented, the AG and POTUS would just sit in teams meetings for the rest of their terms while potential rules get discussed.
This is bad because it undermines the independence of federal agencies, it does not actually impact the Judicial system however.
I wish they'd offer an llm free version with no cap on searches. Their products are too expensive and it feels like it is mostly to pay for the llms. I can’t justify paying that much for a product I am never going to use.
This is not that funny but I was amused watching it happen. One time I was at the DMV in a college town and a kid was at the counter trying to get his license renewed. From what I could gather he had it revoked because he was underage and had a DUI. Lady at the counter bounced the kid and a few minutes later, the kid came back in with his father and they were apparently from a rich family. Or at least rich by Ohio standards. When the lady at the counter explained that he could not have his license renewed because he had a court order against him, the father started in on the "Do you know who I am? I will buy this whole town!" routine, but the DMV lady was not having any of it. Both the kid and the father insisted that the judge did not have any right to take his license away from him and that it would be over turned on appeal so the DMV lady had to give him his license, because dad would make sure she got fired if he didn't. But the DMV lady would not relent and issue a license. The father and kid were getting pretty animated, so finally the lady picked up the phone and said something to the effect of "Your kid lied on this form and is probably violating his probation, we can call the court right now and see what your judge thinks about that." Which at that point caused them to sheepishly leave. When I got to the counter she told me that was not the first time in her career someone tried to do that to her.
One of my big beefs with ML/AL is that these tools can be used to wrap bad ideas in what I will call "Machine legitimacy". Which is another way of saying that there are many cases where these models are built up around a bunch of unrealistic assumptions, or trained on data that is not actually generalizable to the applied situation but will still spit out a value. That value becomes the truth because it came from some automated process. People cant critically interrogate it because the bad assumptions are hidden behind automation.
Yes they lost the civil war. We know this because the CSA does not exist any more. I think that losing your entire country and failing to achieve any strategic objectives is a pretty good definition of "lost a war." The fact that traditions of racism still existed in the southern states during reconstruction does not mean that the CSA won. That's silly.
I suspect it is because he believes he can con Trump into giving him control over the entirety of NASAs budget
The cyber truck is, at this point, a malfunctioning status symbol. I suppose a 100K truck that sucks at being a truck is intended to communicate the driver is a successful tech guy but, whenever I see one, I think "there goes a rube". I have a similar reaction when I see those gaudy designer bags or "luxury" branded tee shirts. I don't think "there is someone who is successful" I think "that person is an idiot."
There should be a catchy term for status symbols that communicate the opposite of their intention. Stupidity symbol? Status irony? Status error? None of these really roll of the tongue.
I often have the opposite experience when looking for technical documentation about programming libraries. For example I will be dealing with a particular bug and will google the library name plus some descriptive terms related to the bug, and I get back general information about the library. In those cases, it seems google often ignores the supplemental information and focuses only on the library name as If I were looking for general information.
What is worse is that the top results are always blog-spam companies that just seem to be copying the documentation pages of whatever language or library I was looking at.
Former CEO of the river poisoning company says there is no way to meet our river poison reduction goals, so we might as well build bigger river poisoning machines because they might help us figure out how to stop poisoning the river. /s
I feel like there was a time when the tech folks in silicon valley had a lot of credibility, and we are now living in a period where most of the world sees them as a joke but that fact has not yet entered into the culture of silicon valley.
longer version that includes defense and prosecution arguments as well has her bananas defense of her conduct.
Starting at 42:31 and going for about 2 minutes is a really stark example of how conspiracy theorists just do not care about the truth and will ignore evidence no matter how obvious.
Starting at around 1:45:12 and going on for about 2 minutes is a really good example of what not to do if you are speaking to a judge at your own sentencing hearing.
Used get my haircut at one of those "no appointment needed" haircut chains. Then they got an app, and every time I went it was "Why aren't you using the app? You need to use the app. Next time use the app. Download the app on your phone. It's gonna be an hour wait because you didn't use the app."
Now I just go to a local place.
Even if you accept the claim that they were duped at face value, what does that say about them? These folk's whole pretense is that they can "see through the media's lies" and that they are able to tell what is really going on. But they were not smart enough to recognize that they were part of a propaganda campaign? They want you to believe they have a sophisticated ability to recognize media manipulation but also now want you to believe that they were hapless stooges that were tricked into participating in a media manipulation campaign.
The NYT ran an opinion recently where the author pretty clearly was using the NYT along with other outlets as part of a voter demobilization tactic in which the author lied about not voting. The NYT was skewered on twitter, and had to alter the opinion after the fact. It seems like some basic fact checking would have been useful in that situation. Or really, just any amount of critical thought on the part of the NYT in general.
My HOA manages communal property (trails, playgrounds, the pool and tennis/basketball courts) and does grounds keeping. They have some rules I find annoying but most of their rules are sensible (like don’t build a fire pit below your deck and don’t block your neighbors driveway with your cars). Ultimately, my HOA is just not that big of a deal. You don’t hear about HOAs like that because they are not interesting enough to post about online.
This article is a very good example of why current media is terrible.
This article is a summary of someone else's work. It does not contain any news. Literally. It contains no new information, no original reporting, and adds nothing to the understanding of the situation in Florida one may glean from reading the CNN article the New Republic is ripping off. What is does is take the reporting done by CNN, which was far more even-keeled, and dresses it up in more incendiary language to outrage media consumers who want information that is consistent with what they already believe.
If you didn't read the CNN article, this is what it did: A reporter at CNN interviewed several lawyers who had cases before Cannon. Those lawyers were asked what they thought about the judge and offered the following opinions:
- She is very detail oriented
- She is rigid and provincial when it comes to procedure and local rules.
- She is indecisive.
- She sometimes seems overwhelmed.
- She focuses on abstract issues, or otherwise obsesses over elements of the case that seem irrelevant to trial lawyers rather than making decisions about factual questions.
- She is not going to defer to the prosecutor automatically, even in situations where the defense and prosecutor agree.
- One lawyer felt she was harsh towards defendants in general but was less harsh towards Trump in this particular case.
The CNN article suggests that a a combination of some or all of factors 1-7 have made it easy for the defense in the Trump case to gum up the works and slow the progress of the trial down.
Most of these opinions are fairly anodyne. Many of them could describe almost any federal judge. Some of them even seem like good characteristics for a federal judge. (I think it is good, for example, that a federal judge requires prosecutors to back up their assertions and motions with specificity, rather than try to justify motions with generic claims.) Whats more is that none of these opinions would be particularly surprising to anyone who has been following the news surrounding Trump's Florida trial. Nothing in the CNN reporting is particularly "damning" as the New Republic characterizes the report. The New Republic focuses on the strongest criticism of Cannon, but that criticism is the opinion of a single lawyer, and only represented a small portion of the overall report offered by CNN. If you only read the New Republic's version, you would be forgiven for thinking that was the focus of the CNN article. In that case you would have an inaccurate view of the article, which is itself mostly a summary of opinions. I will also note that, when the New Republic was copying CNN's homework, they ignored the praise defense lawyers had for Cannon. But I suppose if they had included the praise it would have been harder to call the article "damning".
To put it plainly, the New Republic article is trash. It is a summary of someone else's reporting that hypes up the most negative opinion about a federal judge, while ignoring the bulk of the same reporting.
I’ve got a buddy who is a professor and he catches llm cheaters by asking them difficult questions like “what was your essay about?” and “what were the three points you made in your essay?”. I’m sure llm proponents will offer some bromide about “tools aren’t inherently good or bad”, but it seems like the reality in college is llm tools are used for cheating.