array_key_first

I cannot see the harm in using a different pronoun or opening up the ability for that - it feels like a fake or imaginary problem that we are creating such that we have something to complain about to make ourselves feel better. If we want to feel better, we should just smoke or something.

No, I'll probably just use gender neutral pronouns.

But if they reply back and their email footer has "he/him", I'm probably just gonna use he/him and not think twice about it, because I'm a well-adjusted adult.

Part of the problem is that a lot of people are legitimately delusional, and the correct answer for them in their lives is, in fact, "discount your personal observations (they're not real)".

Like, if Fox news tells some people that San Fran has a ton of crime, then they will start seeing that crime. They will observe it. But that doesn't mean that crime has actually went up. It means they were primed and that they are biased.

When your political opinion relies on some set of facts being true, then you will just believe those facts to be true, ala 1984. And then to you, they are true. Your eyes can most definitely deceive you.

If you give specific numbers then I expect sources. If you give out incredibly bold claims then I also expect sources.

It's one thing to talk casually, in which case I agree with you. But as soon as hard numbers are on the table, it's no longer casual, and if you do not provide sources then the assumption has to be that you pulled the numbers out of your ass and you are not to be trusted.

To get around that, just don't provide numbers and don't speak authoritatively. It's very easy, I don't know why people speak authoritatively if they know they can't back it up.

Even if you think environmentalism is stupid, that doesn't mean being anti-renewable or pro-coal makes any sense at all.

Renewables are also good economically, because they're... Wait for it... Renewable. That's a big deal.

Trump pushing clean coal and knee-capping renewables is bad for our economy. He is literally hurting the American people just to show the finger to liberals. If that sounds stupid, that's because it is.

If this is the case then none of us will have jobs; we will be completely useless.

I think, most likely, you'll still need developers in the mix to make sure the development is going right. You can't just have only business people, because they have no way to gauge if the AI is making the right decisions in regards to technical requirements. So even if the AI DOES get as good as you're saying, they wouldn't know that without developers.

Considering cars are one of the top causes of death for kids (the top?), this just feels obvious.

It probably is introducing more bugs because I think some people dont understand how bugs work.

Very, very rarely is a bug a mistake. As in, something unintentional that you just fix and boom, done.

No no. Most bugs are intentional, and the bug part is some unintended side effects that is a necessary, but unforseen, consequence of the main effect. So, you can't just "fix" the bug without changing behavior, changing your API, changing garauntees, whatever.

And that's how you get the 1 month 1-liner. Writing the one line is easy. But you have to spend a month debating if you should do it, and what will happen if you do.

I'm not concerned with them - I'm just explaining why dating apps suck.

I'm also not casting a curse on anyone, you misunderstood. I'm not saying I'm better than them so this doesn't happen to me. No, it also happens to me.

Because this is by design. This is systemic. The apps are designed in such a way to make your expectations unrealistic and thereby perpetually let you down, because that's how you continue to use the app!

Yes, but the point is that people are not successful on these apps because of those expectations. A lot of people have sort of let the whole online dating thing go straight to their head. And now, theyd rather die alone than be slightly uncomfortable for a few minutes.

It's not a problem with vue or svelte because they are, ironically, reactive. React greedily rerenders.

It's also not a problem with the react compiler.

But if someone has the ability to broadcast their preferred pronouns and we built that in, and it costs nothing, then what's the problem?

I guess I'm just not really understanding people getting upset at what I perceive to be completely made up problems. We have technology, we no longer have to assume gender neutral pronouns for everyone. They can just tell us the pronouns they want.

It is absolutely not impossible to transition away from fossil fuels without suffering.

Fossil fuels aren't risk-free. Even if you don't care about CO2, fossil fuels are extremely inefficient in the long run because they're not renewable. Once you extract them and burn them, they're gone, forever. This IS NOT the case with renewable energy, which means that, as time goes on, renewables will be much cheaper than fossil fuels. Already, today, solar is much cheaper than petroleum per unit of energy.

In addition, every country on Earth can make use of renewables. Most countries cannot use fossil fuels directly, because they don't have them. This means they expose themselves to geopolitical risk. Exhibit A: this.

If the transition is done slowly, you end up saving money, not losing it. That means less suffering, not more.

Sure, but why would I go out of my way to use gender neutral pronouns like "they" when they can just tell me their preferred pronouns?

Linking to a CDN is for development only. Once the app is build you build your dependencies into the app. You don't fetch them at runtime and run them. Not only for security, but also for performance.

There's also a difference between using a CDN for, say, React and a random github project hosted by some dude.

It's definitely a rant worthy mistake because this would literally never happen in any professional app anywhere. This is a supply chain risk.

I would imagine it would be useful in 100% of English-speaking workplaces because all workplaces have the expectation of English communication, which pronouns are essential for. If I'm writing an email or a chat message, I will typically have to use a pronoun.

Inferring pronouns has always been dumb and annoying. Many names don't have obvious pronouns, for example, the name "Taylor". Is that he or she? And clicking the little profile icon and squinting to see if someone is a man or a woman is also a waste of time. It's a lot easier for everyone if it just tells you the pronoun.

> It’s hard to imagine a smug article like this dissecting a product of some other administration.

Yes, that's because this administration is uniquely awful. Basically every single thing this administration does is bad. Often so bad that it's legitimately impressive just how incompetent our leaders our.

Obviously previous administrations were not perfect, but to sit here and pretend that they are on the same level is delusion.

Nowhere in the definition of a free country does it state that you have to be a citizen.

Even in the US constitution that is not the case. Unalienable rights extend to everyone under the constitutions jurisdiction, which includes people who are not citizens. Even aliens get due process in the US. Or should, anyway, if we didn't have anti-American leadership.

I think because the training data includes so many troubleshooting forumn responses, which always go like this.

Theoretically yes, in practice it's like 0.001% of people who are able to use it this way.

We saw the same thing with the Internet. Infinite knowledge, all at your fingertips. So surely everyone becomes doctors and everyone can program right? No more university needed?

Turns out no. The bottleneck has never been information, the bottleneck is you.

AI is ultimately a thinking replacement tool. Losing the skill of critical thought is existential.

The actual lazy argument here is pretending that AI is like the fucking cotton gin or something. We all know and understand it's not. There's people getting whole ass degrees using AI for everything.

The need for human exceptionalism doesn't come from the psyche or anything like that, it's just basic survival skills. Humans believe themselves to be special because that's the only belief that isn't self-destructive.

You can choose to believe humans are not exceptional, in the same way I can choose to cut off all my fingers and eat them. Why would I do that?

If what you say about LLMs is true, that's bad for me. And for you. And for our families. Because it means our instrinic value of living just went down a lot. I choose not to believe it because I am not suicidal. And, ultimately, I think the people who do believe it can only ever make their lives worse. Probably my life worse too, but maybe if I'm all the way over here I'll avoid the blast radius.

Well eating is not optional, LLM use certainly is. If the risk is that you might jump into a psychosis and hurt yourself and others, it's probably not worth it.

I think they're trying to say that if there was a mixed league it would always end up being 100% men at the highest level. Like, mixed league basketball would almost certainly be just men at the highest level because of how the sport works.

It's largely because chess has historically been a boys-club type activity. Women were actively discouraged, if not barred, from playing on grounds of misogyny. So, even today, there's very little women taking it seriously.

Of course, we all know there's no difference in the level of intellect or strategy between men and women.

If you draw the line of intolerance at making laws, I would say you have next to no conviction.

Which is why I think you probably don't actually believe that. That's just the standard you're choosing to apply to this one specific case. As I've said - sex stands alone. The standards are completely unique.

In general I'd say, if the intolerant think I'm intolerant, then I must be doing something right. Ultimately I don't really care how women choose to make their money, and I don't see anything wrong at all with lust. Purity is stupid, who cares, have all the sex you want and jerk yourself off silly.

Also, monogamy is stupid. Or, at least, how most people view it is. There's nothing wrong with being monogamous because you want to. But most people aren't doing it for that. They're doing it because they fear how they will be perceived if they are not monogamous.

And so we see rampant divorces, failed marriages, and cheating out the wazoo! The stupid point to this and say "see, this is what happens to the impure!" But that's not true. That happens because of a notion of purity fueled by shame and perception.

Nobody asks themselves if they love someone. They ask if other people view what they are doing as love. And so, sex is wicked, marriage is good, and that's that.

Specifically when it comes to children, we need to show more restraint in giving them the liberty to partake in potentially addictive substances.

It's one thing if an adult smokes and gambles, it's another thing if a child does. It seems to me that stuff you do in youth tends to stick around for life.

Even if they are abused, their abuse doesn't have any downsides. These people are not growing beards.

Also, I don't even think they are necessarily abused. A lot of men are very sensitive to shaving, with degrees of sensitivity. I think there's probably plenty of guys who have perpetual razor burn and ingrown hairs and nobody cares.

Trump is a very far-right politician, so if you go a little bit left of him then you're still on the right. It's just relativity. The NYT is obviously very left of Trump, and that leaves them still being overly uncritical of Trump. And it's not just them, it's virtually all "left-wing" media.

They do this in a few ways:

1. Sane-washing, as talked about. They will take legitimately incoherent ramblings that sound straight out of an insane aslyum and rewrite them to be understandable. This gives the impression that Trump is reasonable, when he is not.

2. Attributing reason to action. Trump often does erratic things without providing reasoning. The NYT and other media like MSNBC will then fabricate potential reasoning behind it. Often this reasoning is as good as it can be, even though that usually means it's still bad.

3. Benefit of the doubt. Trump is at a point where he lies more than he tells the truth, however, all his statements are still taken as truthful, or at least as being something he believes to be true. Nobody believes Trump is malicious on anything, even if he has shown he is malicious.