You called their comment “ignorant and misleading.” Do you actually stand behind those words?
So asking for more research and less talking when the progress of actual research is publicized is just moronic idiotic, and everything else describing ignorance.
They didn’t ask for “more research.” They were asking for more of these cheap and effective batteries to be available for them to purchase.
Your comment is both ignorant and misleading.
“Less talking. More X,” is a cliche that doesn’t imply that there is zero “X.”
I think you’re fundamentally misunderstanding their comment and then attributing your mistake to them as if it’s their mistake.
Ignoring everything else, “washed up” only means someone has lost their previous high status. It has nothing to do with age. You can be a washed up child actor.
I got one a few years ago that had a setting to automatically go to a specified input when the TV started (similar to how normal TVs used to work).
My only mistake was leaving the TV connected to the network, as it updated and caused some hassle recently.
AI and bots have officially taken over the Internet
This title makes no logical sense. An official statement about a thing has to come from the entity that is in charge of that thing. So, if AI and bots have taken over the internet, any official announcement would logically have to come from the AI or bots.
This reminded me to check if Voyager lets me use other apps to open websites, and it does. So I guess this will be the last time I see something like this. It’s under general settings, you can choose to open links in the default app.
Apparently, some random website can tell, immediately, with zero time needed for scanning or analysis, that my phone is exactly 89% corrupt, whatever that means.
I wonder how many people fall for this despite it being so obviously bullshit.
Pretty sure I saw advertisements on screens in bathrooms in American nightclubs and bars over twenty years ago. I think they didn’t have one per cubicle, though.
I wonder if he wrote that post character-by-character.
But actually typing out the code is the least difficult part of programming, once you’ve been doing it for five or ten years. You have to understand the code that is already there. You have to decide the behavior, either way. You have to review the code, either way. Design the local and overall architecture. Design interfaces and APIs.
The fact that he thinks typing out new code took so much effort basically means that he was never a decent programmer. His statement betrays that he doesn’t even understand what’s difficult. People with his level of understanding of a topic shouldn’t broadcast their ignorance publicly.
If any of those cryonic places were legit and not weird cults, it would be worth the risk regardless. The wager is that someday, medical science will be able to fix the damage caused by the freezing process. A freezing process that causes less damage simply means they might get unfrozen sooner.
Of course, the non-medical fundamental problem is why the hell would someone in the future wake you up, even if they could? The future will already have a population problem if people are living longer, and a person from the past will likely add zero value for them. That’s why they’re all weird cults today, because they have to believe they’re important enough to unfreeze.
China is a shitshow, legally speaking. The Chinese government basically encourages Chinese companies to steal international IP. If you sell any products to China, you can expect them to steal any novel ideas inside. There’s no recourse even for big companies.
We don’t really know what consciousness is to begin with. Some philosophers even speculate that everything might have some kind of consciousness. In that case, your consciousness might go on forever, but you’d have no physical reality. No senses or anything.
Even if it’s not entirely faked, you can instruct an AI to give you wrong answers to your questions. So unless you can see the entire conversation history, you can’t make any conclusions about a single response.
I imagine if somebody started a thread here that asked the same question, but said, “Wrong answers only,” people would find a lot of evidence that humans aren’t capable of figuring this out, either.
You were using the phrase correctly. “They can’t compete with it,” is the standard way of saying what you intended to say.
I was playing off of the normal meaning of your statement to make a turn of phrase. In other words, I am intentionally using weird phrasing, and placing it next to your normal phrasing for humor and impact.
It says that xAI lost their second cofounder, but then it turns out that he just left the company.
I never worked for Google, so I can’t say for sure, but I have this weird suspicion that they use a shitload of open source software, and I’m not just talking about their Android OS or Chromebooks, but for their most core businesses.
It wouldn’t be odd to think that Google might not exist except for their being able to use the open-source software that people had made before they founded their company.
The alternative is that they were complete idiots who paid for all sorts of retail software.
Of course Google hates open-source. They can’t compete with it.
Again, it’s just my supposition, but I’d bet that they can’t compete without it, either.
For any major tech company, apart from ones that are absolutely dedicated to proprietary software starting from firmware up through the OS and on to applications, like Microsoft and Apple, it’s going to be deeply hypocritical to hate open-source.
I noticed something similar with video. Like, if I am paying attention, the difference between the highest quality encoding and the next level is usually visible.
However, I have a harder time telling the difference if I don’t do a side by side comparison.
And even when I can easily tell the difference, once I’m watching the thing, I get into the story and I don’t care anyways.
Obviously a slightly different criteria compared to music, but people do make a big deal out of stuff that even they don’t actually care about.
I have wondered the same about scammers. Like, if their mother knew they were going to do that with their life, she’d probably regret all of that wasted effort raising them.
it’s important to have verifiable studies to cite in arguments for policy, law, etc.
It’s also important to have for its own merit. Sometimes, people have strong intuitions about “obvious” things, and they’re completely wrong. Without science studying things, it’s “obvious” that the sun goes around the Earth, for example.
I don’t need a formal study to tell me that drinking 12 cans of soda a day is bad for my health.
Without those studies, you cannot know whether it’s bad for your health. You can assume it’s bad for your health. You can believe it’s bad for your health. But you cannot know. These aren’t bad assumptions or harmful beliefs, by the way. But the thing is, you simply cannot know without testing.
Great, so I guess you’ll talk specifically about why it was both “ignorant” and “misleading”.
Whoops. It seems you failed to say anything about why the comment was “ignorant” or “misleading”. Even if you accept it’s “braindead”, and I don’t, that only means it’s not using brain power, like the author is just on autopilot, and doesn’t mean “ignorant.”
Of course, it would have been an impossible endeavor to prove your point, because their comment was neither ignorant nor misleading.
Anyways, I’m done here. I’ll be reporting you for violating Rule 3 and blocking you.