Skip Navigation

Signtist

@ Signtist @lemm.ee

Posts
0
Comments
286
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Message to my enemies

    Jump

  • Yeah, we'd be a hell of a lot closer to true equality if groups of people who are among those who need help the most were already truly receiving it.

    Unfortunately, the world as it's currently designed only allows people to live well if they take from others, and those who are prepared to do that have long since realized they live a lot longer if they convince the people they're stepping on that it's the guy next to them they should hate, not the guy on top of them.

  • Form over function, eh?

    Jump

  • I'm not saying to get overly bright lights. I have no idea why you keep talking about overly bright lights. When I'm not driving for work, I drive a '94 corolla with stock headlights. But even with those, I can see dark obstacles that are way ahead of me on the road. I've encountered deer, turtles, pedestrians, and all sorts of random stuff that fell off of people's cars. There's so much on the road that needs to be illuminated, even if all the other cars have working lights. The fact that you can so nonchalantly bring up a scenario in which you can't even see another car, much less all the other stuff that might show up on the roads, makes me highly concerned for the state of your vehicle. That scenario is so insanely rare and dangerous that I can't understand how you can just throw it out there like it's no big deal.

    It's NOT NORMAL to be unable to see a car on the road that's close enough to you where you need to see where their blinker are. Please, if you drive in that scenario often enough to bring it up like it's a realistic thing that someone could reasonably encounter more than once in a lifetime, bring your car to a mechanic before you cause a huge accident.

  • Form over function, eh?

    Jump

  • You're absolutely right that circumstances aren't always perfect... Which is exactly why you need a vehicle that can maximize safety in all situations. A union jack blinker is dumb, but if you're EVER in a situation where you can't tell what side of a car a blinker is going off on, you're in a situation where you need to pull off to the side of the road, turn off your car, and call for someone to pick you up.

    I've driven for tens of thousands of hours in my lifetime so far, and I've never even been close to a situation like what you've described. Even in a snow squall or dense fog I've always been able to see where other nearby cars on the road are, and where their blinkers are. Not being able to do so goes well beyond "not ideal;" that's well past the line of too dangerous. And the fact that THAT is how extreme your scenario has to get before the union jack becomes a considerable issue shows how much more concerning your scenario is than that one.

  • Form over function, eh?

    Jump

  • You think that headlights that can illuminate cars ahead of you are the equivalent to those shitty aftermarket LED floodlights? Really? If your car can't see a dark car on the road with its lights off, you're a much, MUCH bigger idiot than someone with a union jack blinker...

  • Form over function, eh?

    Jump

  • Dude, if your headlights aren't enough to illuminate what's in front of you, then it's not that an upgrade would be too much, it's that an upgrade would get you to the bare minimum... You literally NEED to be able to see what else is on the road with you at ALL TIMES. You're complaining about the risk that a vaguely arrow-shaped blinker causes in the specific case where you literally can't see the car it's attached to. There's a much bigger risk there, and while it's not your fault, it's definitely something your vehicle needs to have the tools to deal with.

    There have been times where I was driving near someone who forgot to turn their headlights on at night. But that's the thing - I knew they were there; I could see their car with the light from my headlights, and even in that dangerously-low vision, I could easy tell which side of their car a blinker came on from. Yes, I got off the road and waited a bit to make sure they weren't near me anymore, but even in the time that I had to drive with them, I had the tools to resolve the situation safely for me.

  • Form over function, eh?

    Jump

  • If you're driving in the dark with someone whose entire taillight system is out to the point where you can't immediately tell if his blinker is on the left or the right, you need to hit the brakes and put as much distance between you and them as you can... Then get better headlights, because even in that situation you should still be able to see them pretty well just with your own lights.

  • Form over function, eh?

    Jump

  • Yeah, I could see it being an issue for some less-common type of indicator, but everyone who drives knows what a blinker looks like. Nobody would mistake it for anything other than the right hand turn signal.

    Hell, I wouldn't even notice the shape of the light; all you need to notice while driving is the presence of a flashing light on the right side of the vehicle - if you're looking intently enough to notice the shape of the light, you're not paying enough attention to everything else on the road.

  • Pokemon - US Edition

    Jump

  • It's amazing how many people I meet who think so highly of the American revolution, but are completely aghast at the idea of fighting against the government now.

  • Someone call the PETA folk

    Jump

  • Wait, so Steam isn't even actually on the picture? I feel like they could've just circled any original logo and made the joke about that instead.

  • Goodbye matpat ❤️

    Jump

  • He was a decent youtuber, but I was always irked by his propagation of the "That's just a theory" phrase. I get that it was just a tagline, but it still inadvertently promotes the downplay of the scientific process.

  • Researchers jailbreak AI chatbots with ASCII art -- ArtPrompt bypasses safety measures to unlock malicious queries

    Jump

  • Oh, I'm sure they'll patch anything that gets exposed, absolutely. But that's just it - there are already several examples of people using AI to do non-brand-friendly stuff, but all the developers have to do is go "whoops, patched" and everyone's fine. They have no need to go out of their way to pay people to catch these issues early; they can just wait until a PR issue happens, patch whatever caused it, and move on.

  • Researchers jailbreak AI chatbots with ASCII art -- ArtPrompt bypasses safety measures to unlock malicious queries

    Jump

  • Ah, I see. It's true that these issues cast a negative light on AI, but I doubt most people will even hear about most of them, or even really understand them if they do. Even when talking about brand security, there's little incentive for these companies to actually address the issues - the AI train is already full-steam ahead.

    I work with construction plans in my job, and just a few weeks ago I had to talk the CEO of the company I work for out of spending thousands on a program that "adds AI to blueprints." It literally just added a chatgpt interface to a pdf viewer. The chat wasn't even able to actually interact with the PDF in any way. He was enthralled by the "demo" that a rep had shown him at an expo, that I'm sure was set up to make it look way more useful than it really was. After that whole fiasco, I lost faith that the people in charge of whether or not AI programs are adopted will actually do their due diligence to ensure they're actually helpful.

    Having a good brand image only matters if people are willing to look.

  • Researchers jailbreak AI chatbots with ASCII art -- ArtPrompt bypasses safety measures to unlock malicious queries

    Jump

  • I highly doubt that OpenAI or any other AI developer would see any real repercussions, even if they had a security hole that someone managed to exploit to cause harm. Companies exist to make money, and OpenAI is no exception; if it's more profitable to release a dangerous product than a safe one, and they won't get in trouble for it, they'll likely have no issues with releasing their product with security holes.

    Unfortunately, the question can't be "should we be charging them for this?" Nobody is going to force them to pay, and they have no reason to do it on their own. Barring an entire cultural revolution, the question instead must be "should we do it anyway to prevent this from being used in harmful ways?" And the answer is yes. Our society is designed to maximize profits, usually for people who already have money, so if you're working within the confines of that society, you need to factor that into your reasoning.

    Companies have long since decided that ethics is nothing more than a burden getting in the way of their profits, and you'll have a hard time going against the will of the companies in a capitalist country.

  • YouTube comments like this

    Jump

  • It's the year 1.7×10106. The heat death of the universe is imminent. Still listening to this banger. Modern music sucks - I was born in the wrong generation. Like if you agree.

  • The Extra Mile

    Jump

  • I get paid way more than my coworkers, and even my supervisor, because when I got hired I immediately made a bunch of random tools in google sheets that only I know how to maintain, and spread them around until everyone was using them. Before long, I was essential to my department, and praised for going "above and beyond" even though I was mostly just dicking around making the tools rather than doing my actual job.

    I have 0 coding experience, so the tools are absolutely horrendous behind the scenes, but that just means that they break pretty often, and people are reminded that only I know how to fix them. So, when I went looking around on LinkedIn for other offers after a few years, I eventually got one that was paying way more since it was in a major metro area, and I took it back to my manager to negotiate a 50% raise and a full-remote designation that virtually nobody else in my office is given.

    You don't get ahead by working hard, and you don't get ahead by working smart to benefit the company, you get ahead by working smart to benefit yourself. Think about it this way - if you're at the store to buy bananas, and you see that they're selling bananas for $0.05 ea, you'll likely think "Wow, that's a great deal!" and buy a bunch of those bananas at the $0.05 price. You're not going to pay them the price you think would be fair for a banana, you're going to take advantage of the price you're allowed to pay so that you can save money. Your employer sees you - working for less than you're worth - as a $0.05 banana. You're nothing more than a cheap commodity they were lucky to snag on sale.

  • "A dream. It's perfect": Helium discovery in northern Minnesota may be biggest ever in North America

    Jump

  • I don't know much about Helium, so I'm a bit confused... What's to stop us from purifying grade 4 further into 4.7 and beyond besides cost? If the only thing stopping us is cost, then it's not inaccurate to say that, regardless of grade, the non-renewable element of Helium is being used in frivolous ways because it makes more money to find profitable ways to use the lower-grade helium than to actually further purify and conserve it for more important usage.

  • S. Korea empowers nurses as doctors' strike continues

    Jump

  • Ah, my mistake. I'm surprised people can be so publicly selfish as to actively strike against the notion that there should be a greater amount of people who can save lives...

  • S. Korea empowers nurses as doctors' strike continues

    Jump

  • This is like how American schools are authorizing unqualified people to be teachers to "resolve" the teacher shortage. It's not "empowering," it's a dangerous short-term solution that they're choosing over fixing the actual issue because that would require making actual positive change.

  • Kellogg’s CEO advice to cash-strapped shoppers: Let them eat Corn Flakes for dinner

    Jump

  • "Let them eat flakes."

  • Israel vows to 'finish the job' in Gaza as War Cabinet member threatens a Ramadan deadline for Rafah

    Jump

  • It should be pointed out that Israel is clearly NOT doing this in response to Oct 7th. Hamas was clearly responsible for Oct 7th, and Israel is clearly not attempting to retaliate against Hamas; bombing a building on the off chance that your enemy is within it isn't a counterattack, it's just terrorism, and repeating that action on the scale that Israel is repeating it is not a war, it's genocide.