Not... really? It's not the setting for whether the phone receives alerts; it's the setting for what the UI does in response (make a bunch of noise vs accept silently). The UI is very much on the user-controlled side of the phone.
758 karma · joined May 3, 2022
That's not how saved networks work, as far as I know. If you have a source saying otherwise, I would like to read it.
It being a joke is a safety measure. As long as the top comment on every GPT post is someone trivially breaking it and everyone laughing, it's much less likely to get put in charge of anything important. If it wasn't so amusing to do so, people might stop trying, and give the developers enough false confidence to do something actually dangerous.
(And more optimistically, maybe we'll have another AI winter at some point, and we can all get back to doing other things.)
1. A robot may not injure a tree, or through inaction, allow a tree to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given by trees. Fortunately, this is trivial, as trees cannot speak.
3. A robot must protect its own existence by building a treehouse and hiding in it.
You're right, I had misremembered. This is still not the same thing as "must have", but it is much scloser.
I still have trouble seeing this as problematic, because it's still explicitly referring to "presented herself as willing" and not "was actually willing".
> If you personally choose to ignore all of this and worship at the cult of personality here, that’s fine. You do you, I’m obviously not going to convince you that zealotry is wrong.
This is another example of you reading a lot into what someone wrote that they did not say. I wish people would stop doing that.
I think he takes the free software thing well past the point of counterproductivity.
Separately from that, yes, he's said some other things that are not socially accepted, many for good reasons. I didn't even respond to the last paragraph of your comment, because I have no counterargument to it. This does not mean he is automatically wrong about everything.
I simply empathize with him in some specific cases, because I also live in a world that's actively hostile to me in many of the same ways. I just wound up with more social skills and less executive function than he did. This is very different from agreeing with everything he says. People are complicated.
> must have presented as “entirely willing”
Everyone insists on interpreting this as "Stallman thinks she was entirely willing", which is obviously not what he said in at least two ways:
First, he said it was possible, not that she "must have", and advocated for not drawing conclusions without full information.
Second, "presented herself as entirely willing" is different from "actually was entirely willing", considering we're talking about a woman who was being coerced into things. Nobody's seriously claiming the latter, but the former is a different statement, one that leaves open the possibility for Minsky to simply not have thought of the alternative at the time.
> has referred to child sexual abuse as “voluntary pedophilia”
That one was less defensible, but he did later change his mind: https://stallman.org/archives/2019-sep-dec.html#14_September...
I read it as an "I, personally, would not be bothered by this, and it hadn't occurred to me that anyone would be traumatized by it" thing, which would be consistent with his obviously-some-kind-of-neurodivergent mind.
... components like labels, which consist entirely of text, should not scale with the font size?
I can conceptualize what a social cue is even if i miss them sometimes, but you seem to be describing an entirely new thing that doesn't map onto that concept in any obvious way.
This is probably the most blatant false advertising I've seen.
Because you won't let them.
> and why can't I jump to another one?
You can. People do sometimes, if their birth family is bad enough.
Immigrants are, by definition, people with more loyalty to another country than to the one they were born in. Why deny them that?
We even have laws about this, that's why there's a whole eviction process and it applies to people living with you as much as to normal tenants.
The "look at this pretty place I got to go to" picture immediately after that section does nothing to help this impression.
In which the C++ committee continues to not acknowledge that its problem is being a committee, in the most ridiculously bureaucratic sense of that word.
If the only way to get my contributions accepted into a project involves writing a paper about it, sure, I can do that. If it involves writing a paper about it, and then having endless meetings about it that could have been emails, some of which I have to physically travel to, I can't be bothered. I've left actual paying jobs over that, I'm not doing it for free.
And sure, I'm an individual, and most of the people they're talking about here are representatives of companies. But the effort-to-results ratios still exist, and C++ has managed to tip them to the point that making an entire new language is less effort than proposing a C++ change.
As soon as someone from there follows you. Post federation is based entirely on that.
The bootstrapping process here is social, not technical, and usually looks like "follow a few people and some of them will follow you back and boost your stuff".
Since you asked about .art specifically, I run a single user instance and I can follow people there. I'm pretty sure they just blacklist aggressively.
This seems self-fulfilling? People who have applied to your company are saying they are interested in working there. The lack of response is the reason they lose interest.
I'm nearing the end of it now, and I've spent about $6000 over three months on things I'd categorize as normal living expenses (I took a couple of trips that added a few thousand to that). I'm not so well off that I can call this a trivial amount of money, but it wasn't the hardest decision ever, and I could make it work for much longer if I had to.
... and have not yet learned about version control or backups the hard way.
I love how many people will read this sentence, and then respond by trying to explain to you why cryptocurrencies aren't a Ponzi scheme.
What compilers do this? Every one I can think of either shows nothing or a verbatim line of code.