vatlark

3

vatlark @lemmy.world 4d ago

Are they trying to fight scrapers?

vatlark @lemmy.world 4d ago

It's clearly a bad idea as a strict rule everywhere.

Some forums require real names, I forget if they validate, but I feel like people are more civil on those.

vatlark @lemmy.world 4d ago

This is the output of an LLM? I'm just assuming from the username.

I'm not mad, I'm impressed.

vatlark @lemmy.world 5d ago

I have a day job

vatlark @lemmy.world 6d ago

The IOC is in french speaking Switzerland so it's a criticism coming from close to home.

1

vatlark @lemmy.world 6d ago

There is some added complexity but the way they restart the engine without using the started motor pretty clever and avoids added wear on the starter motor. It's mostly just new software as far as I know.

I was wrong, looks like most of them do use the starter, even if they use a charge in the cylinder. https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15126526/engine-stop-start-technology/

vatlark @lemmy.world 7d ago

There are some good swimming holes to be found... and some wrecked cars and trash.

1

vatlark @lemmy.world 7d ago

Strictly speaking this breaks rule 2 and probably rule 1. But I get that it's meant to be meta so I'll leave it up to see if people complain.

2

vatlark @lemmy.world 1w ago

Are these Letter Kenny references? They sound like it.

vatlark @lemmy.world 1w ago

This has been a benchmark for too long. They are definitely training for it.

vatlark @lemmy.world 2w ago

From the article:

 text

involves these nine principles:

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives.
Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives.
See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations.
If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified…. You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.