Skip Navigation

Posts
0
Comments
1384
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • both of these readings are valid:

    (should become a victim of an act of aggression) or (an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used)

    ((should become a victim of an act of aggression) or (an object of a threat of aggression)) in which nuclear weapons are used

    english is ambiguous in this case. don’t be dismissive of people for “reading comprehension” when it’s definitively ambiguous

  • it’s definitively ambiguous. you can’t say either way with only the english.

  • absolutely… all the people praising this, like… those signs exist for traffic flow and safety… it’s so incredibly selfish to just say fuck everyone else, i need to turn right and even more selfish to avoid repercussions but making it “okay” for everyone else

    maybe the sign was wrong, sure… but we don’t have that information… without more information, it’s an incredibly selfish act. dude has main character syndrome

  • i think that’s a solvable problem, but would require some centralised entity in order to make agreements

    something like the linux foundation for example

    i could imagine that central organisation making agreements with rights-holders like content ID (though hopefully better implemented), and also developing software to identify infringing material… they could run a certification program where instances are allowed to host copyright content as long as they also run the content ID mechanism, and pay rights-holders… perhaps they do constant, anonymous validation of the mechanism to ensure compliance… they could also sweeten the deal by mandating defederation from instances that host pirated content, and maintain a list of banned instances (to bring rights holders to the table: support this and we will pay you, and help you make piracy harder to access)… spitballing here - not saying i agree this is in the best interests of the platform, but it might be how it could work

    it’s a chicken and an egg problem though: rights holders won’t care to think about it until it’s big enough to be worth it, but it’s going to be difficult to be big enough to be worth it without content (and let’s be honest, with google fighting tooth and nail to remain an effective monopoly)

  • i believe they’re saying that the deflector shield requires constant power, so that’s part of why the engine is required while moving rather than just while accelerating

  • and thus in this case worst than useless: dangerous

  • hmmm that doesn’t really track imo: the amount of water that planes emit is negligible, and even if they do seed clouds they’re not actually creating significant cloud systems without the moisture in the atmosphere, which absolutely dwarfs anything that planes emit… remember the amount of moisture in the atmosphere is all the rain produced before aviation, and the amount of moisture in the atmosphere emitted by aviation is at most the difference between that rain and the rain since aviation (i’d wager it’s far less than 0.01%)

    and seed clouds don’t actually create more clouds overall: they just move them from other locations. clouds are formed when humidity reaches a particular level at a particular layer of the atmosphere which exceeds the airs ability to hold onto it at that level, and the cloud stops forming when when it has reduced the humidity to the level to which it stays in the atmosphere

  • fight? in putins case i think you mean join

  • because entire laws aren’t meant to handle individual cases. making laws is slow and laborious, and is meant to cover the broad strokes

    the real fix is to have a panel or something, similar to how you have judges etc now, and i’m sure there are other solutions

    the fact that the currently implementation is rife with abuse - and only pretty recently at that - isn’t a reason the whole thing shouldn’t exist (which is what the thread was about)

  • little measurable difference? the last time they rewrote something they replaced the start menu with fucking react

    the difference will be measurable and enormous

  • because the world can’t be sorted into neat little boxes, and the law isn’t perfect. there are many things that are technically crimes that would be a moral imperative to ignore (eg whistleblowing, draft dodging for the vietnam war)

    the law should be tempered. the system the US provides for that is police discretion, prosecutorial discretion, and pardon

    perhaps the system should be different, but a mechanism to pardon people for crimes where society has moved on (selling weed, for example), or where a moral imperative to break the law exists (again, something like whistleblowers: chelsea manning was pardoned… or rather her sentence was commuted, which i believe is different but similar logical reasoning) is very important imo

    you can’t simultaneously and logically hold these 2 things:

    • lawmakers are idiots and the laws they make are broken and often moral
    • the law is perfect and this should be applied without exception
  • drug crimes, for example… if the US govt decided selling weed is all of a sudden no longer a crime, that doesn’t automatically release people from prison

    or if someone did something technically illegal, but the circumstance around it made it clearly the moral choice (perhaps something like whistleblowers)

    the world is messy and no law perfectly covers all bases… pardons are the same as prosecutorial or police discretion. in an ideal world, the harshness of the law should be tempered by morality of the individuals at many levels

    of course that falls apart when the morality at every level is non existent, but that is legitimate purpose/reason. imo the discussion shouldn’t be about the overall legitimacy of the powers themselves, but in the trade-offs and lack of real protections from abuse, or who gets to have a say in those things

  • that’s absolutely true, and i’m sure that as tooling and workflow gets better these solutions will become standard. for the moment it’s all pretty haphazard, and i just don’t think it’s necessarily malicious intent or lying exactly… i think it could have easily been just miscommunication and/or legitimate mistake

    afaik there were 2 issues here: there was a placeholder asset left in the game upon release, and the rules of the award were no AI assets during development either. i think the first can be easily explained by it being accidental (they replaced the texture very quickly) and the second can easily be explained by miscommunication between teams

  • i can see how this would happen though: marketing team simplistically asks about AI assets, dev team says no because it’s not in the final product that they’re aware of, and that miscommunication is exactly that: neither team is trying to be dishonest, it’s just that some information got lost along the way

    their award should have been rescinded for sure

    but also that shouldn’t tarnish the reputation of the studio going forward as long as they apologise and it was legitimately internal miscommunication rather than an attempt to deceive

  • yeah i don’t even think the dishonesty was necessarily dishonesty… i just think perhaps the marketing team wasn’t fully informed. i can absolutely see dev teams saying no to “AI use” not having been told that the question applied to the whole dev process, and marketing not understanding that that information was important

    i have no problem with AI placeholders. i think that’s the right way to use AI… and dishonesty is a problem… miscommunication is really not a problem

    but i also think that rescinding the award is the right call! but that shouldn’t tarnish the studios reputation in the future if they apologise and explain what happened

  • yeah they do certainly exist, but bog standard “red light cameras”… ie single purpose cameras are not that kind of problem… imo, as long as they’re deployed to combat actual issues they’re very much a beneficial tool

    i think it’s important to differentiate these new kinds of cameras from the single purpose cameras so that arguments against them can be made independently

  • going straight from nothing to 30g/day (RDI) absolutely causes diarrhoea because it irritates your gut lining

    if you follow directions like metamucil has to increase by a g or 2 per week then you’ll be right

    you also need insoluble fibre, and psyllium only has soluble fibre

  • adjacent YSKs:

    • there’s soluble and insoluble fibre. you need both, and psyllium only has soluble fibre so it’s part of a larger fibre intake (carrots are pretty okay sources of insoluble fibre - snacking carrots, perhaps with hummus is great!)
    • peanut butter also has surprisingly decent fibre in it: honestly insoluble fibre is everywhere
    • if you plan on adding psyllium (or any fibre) to your diet, build up slowly! it can cause literally constant diarrhoea for weeks or more if you just whack 30g/day (RDI) straight into your diet all at once
    • add some to pancake batter! you’ll want to add about 10-20% more liquid because it gels up, but it’s real easy to add and is basically unnoticeable