almostjazz

I may be wrong but I think they are referring to the Republican party's position on trans athletes in sports (literally, who is allowed on a girls sports team) being the only thing that matters to some voters.

I'm not a lawyer but based on some googling it seems like the overwhelming consensus is that selling transcribed sheet music or tabs if you do not have permission from the copyright holder of the song is illegal.

https://www.thatgreatcomposer.com/blog/is-it-legal-to-transc...

https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/96352/dual-question-...

https://www.drumforum.org/threads/what-is-the-legal-basis-fo...

Can you point to where these ideas have been confirmed as objectively not true?

Just a reminder that there is nothing new about reversing autism-like symptoms in mice.

And that autism in humans is not well-defined.

And that whether or not varying severities of autism should be perceived as a disorder or condition in need of a cure does not have a consensus among experts.

Compilation speed on typst is crazy

Maybe you could set your manual version as the main branch and then have a separate AI-cleaned branch on the side? I think the manual version part is what is exciting people and drawing them in. Even if it is worse or doesn't work!

There are women construction workers, garbage people, and firefighters. There are much better reasons why these fields have disproportionately fewer women than a biological barrier to the required level of strength.

I am interested to hear what career or societal role you think a women cannot or should not do because of menstrual related mood swings. Because it clearly isn't President of the United States or billionaire CEO.

Where exactly is the physical strength of males necessary in modern society?

The only circumstance in which there are men strong enough to so something that women can't do is at the most elite level of athletics. Any role relevant to society that would require that level of strength, we have machines for, because the majority of men and women are not elite powerlifters, and because they probably need way more strength than is safe even for those elite athletes to require all the time.

And then yes women can give birth and breastfeed (though it doesn't seem like being raised on formula alone is much of a problem these days). I don't see why those biological features need to affect roles as much as (some) people seem to think they should.

People with different skin colours have different resiliences to sun exposure, but just because the sun is a big part of our life doesn't mean we NEED to shape society around those biological differences.

Where is the evidence that this is the case in humans?

If strength is relevant, should particularly weak boys be "treated like girls"?

Should particularly strong girls be "treated like boys"?

Should girls and women without functioning reproductive systems be treated like boys?

What differences in social roles have been proven "necessary"?

Is the fact that chimpanzees do things a certain way remotely good evidence that we should do something that way too?

Answer key:

- no

- no

- no

- which gamete you supply?

- no

Of course the language abilities of LLMs is not proof of consciousness at all. If some alien entity made a model that was truly just 10^1000 hard-coded if-statements to respond to every possible question, it might seem way better than our best models now but would obviously not be conscious.

The problem is just that even in the most lousy, turing test-failing LLM there's no guarantee that not a single subsection of these giant neural nets hasn't replicated the basic computational blocks of consciousness found in something even as simple as a snail.

Here's another question: can LLMs do addition?

I agree you can't practically get the same information as you could with telemetry.

Survey data is still real data that can be used for "analytics".

Some people also hate telemetry. It feels invasive. I have a guess about what direction the percentage of consumers who hate telemetry is moving toward.

You could survey a representative sample

Side comment: |> and %>% aren't the same btw! The newish base pipe (|>) is faster but doesn't support using the dot (.) placeholder to pipe into something other than the first argument of a function, which can sometimes make things a little cleaner.

If you force something major and permanent on somebody without their consent for no good reason, of course it would be evil. It would be evil to force somebody gay to be straight and it would be evil to force somebody straight to be gay, that has nothing to do with the goodness or badness of being straight or gay. Hair dye is temporary.

What exactly is logically impossible about people with down syndrome being happier on average than those without it?

Problem of induction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

That is only part of the equation. You may be removing more malevolent actors in the immediate short term, but depending on how that policing is done, you might also be creating more malevolent actors too. Overpolicing a group can create distrust between the community and the police. Once you feel the system does not care about you or treats you unfairly, there is little reason for why you should care about it. And if P(Caught|Group X) != P(Caught), the system is treating you unfairly.

I would argue we as society don't want crime to stop simply for the sake of crime stopping (or for prison labor), but ultimately because we want to feel happy and safe from harm and unjust treatment. The systems we design need to factor in the humanness of the police and their communities and make sure they are not set up in a way that loses sight of that bigger picture.

If you start with hypothetical demographic groups A and B that are for all intents and purposes exactly identical, but you implement a system such that if A commits a crime they have a 10% chance of being caught and if B commits a crime they have a 50% chance of being caught, you will achieve the following:

1. More short-term crime prevention than a system catching 10% of A's crimes and 10% of B's crimes (good!)

2. Enforce a societal belief that A is intrinsically better than B (bad!)

3. Disproportionately burden children, families, and communities in B than A, causing them to indeed perform worse in everything than those in A (bad!)

4. As a result of 2 & 3 it is not a stretch to say simply causing B to do more actual crime (potentially negating point 1 entirely)

If you believe that crime enforcement is not for the sake of vengeance but instead something done to improve the well-being, safety, and happiness of citizens, you may see that inequality=bad just as crime=bad. How to best solve this trolley problem is complicated but it's important that people are aware that it is complicated before firing off an answer.