blitz_skull

I forced myself to learn it as a junior dev. Was it tough? Sure. But my point is that if it's too daunting and frustrating—software development holds nothing but pain for you.

I use these opportunities to stretch my "No" muscles. Is it uncomfortable? Of course. But flexing the non-permissive "No" muscles helps you say "No" when it's really important.

Why does capitalism have to be your scapegoat? Why not go to the root—the lust for power. In essence that’s what money is anyway, it’s just a means to an end.

Would you also fix the endless human desire for more? If you can, then you’ve got a shot. Otherwise, you don’t.

Oh boy. Well for starters Newton and Galileo didn’t have the internet. That’s 80% of this misinformation problem.

And GP was talking about how journalists can be skeptical. No one is suggesting journalists should be debunking all new science findings—merely that they should be very skeptical when reporting about those findings.

Simple: Stop believing it’s true just because a scientist said it.

You don’t need a STEM degree to stop propagating theories before they’re proven.

Sorry, you’re right perhaps I was being too flippant. What I meant to convey is: the information itself is interesting. But I can’t get past the whole agonizing about gender thing. If I’m to be lectured about gender inequality (whatever that is), and indeed the article doesn’t press that fact explicitly but it still feels pervasive throughout, then at least do me the courtesy of answering what a single individual like myself should be compelled to DO.

Simply informing me that women don’t write many top hits, by itself, is sorta like… “Ight, and?”

But you are correct. Perhaps I’m projecting a bit in my reflection here. I guess I just wanted to article to be more actionable if it was committed to being whiny.

Make me think about what? I want to listen to good music and don't give a diddly damn if it came from an X or a Y chromosome.

Sure, I'll agree they're closely aligned but software freedom and "user" agency (I'm guessing as opposed to general human agency?) require software to be relevant and therefore I wouldn't say they're universal human rights.

Important? To be sure. Just not "rights".

If having rights is a social construct as opposed to a universal truth, then you don't have any rights at all. You have temporary granted permissions, but not fundamental rights.

As such, it's much more likely that they are universally true rather than a result of human consensus.

Okay.. honest question without negative intent: Why should we care? Stats are cool and all, but what am I supposed to do with this information?

Wrong. Society is just a social construct, but your right to independent thought and agency, which is powered by privacy, are fundamental to the human experience.

Those are not human rights. Privacy, on the other hand, is.

This is a very strange rant. I’ve built keyboard shortcuts for app used by thousands of international monthly users and have never had a complaint about it.

Also… “onKeyPress” gives you names for most non-letter key presses.

Well… by that definition we’ve got a government very invested in expanding fascism.

But most people are fascist at some level if the definition is simply diminishing democracy.

Yeah I don’t label something as “social” just because it’s “public”.

I guess I’m saying we don’t need to like and comment on emergency updates. You can already share by an innovative technology called “URLs” ;)

Pretty sure they directly stated it—the consumer is being coerced. Deceptive tactics to make it hard to stop paying for something you don't want is coercive and deceptive behavior.

Nothing makes me want this to pass more than Disney and Netflix fighting it. If those assholes are opposed to it, almost by definition I'm going to be for it.

Yeah, not me. That's a website. It's a pretty distinct technological entity, that has nothing to do with "social" networking which has been defined during the past 20 years as a single website with "social" sharing capabilities.

Ideally a government-run emergency broadcast website would have literally 0 social features.

Do factors matter?

Unless you can mass edit all the factors, then it remains that some people simply cannot do math past a certain level.

But for what it’s worth, it was a very small school in a VERY poor area. (Median income probably at or below $20k / year) The teaching was actually above-average for the area, but probably below average over a national rating.

I do think factors matter in my personal anecdote of my particular high school. However my LIFE has reinforced my observations: most people are profoundly bad at math, from a seemingly fundamental level.

But his point still stands.. the lens of chronological snobbery is intellectually dishonest regardless of “framing”.

Our modern society is radically oriented towards the individual, and not the family. That does bias our view of how good or bad a previously family-oriented society was.

It’s hard to fully quantify the long-term implications of that change.

How does supporting this idea make him fascist?

I just want to see a definition of done. What the hell does it even mean to “understand the true nature of the universe”?

What makes us think we can understand it?

How would we know if we could or could not?

What makes him a fascist exactly?

You didn't go to the high school I went to. Some people, fundamentally, just cannot do math.

Can it remove duplicates? That’s the holy grail along with storing my images. I’ve got so many damn photos, and I want to reduce the total amount I have but going through them is so daunting I’ll never do it without a computer-assisted organizer.

Not with that attitude! /s

Lol, I’ve never heard a single person suggest that we’d be living in some LLM utopia if OpenAI was gone.

Who have you been talking to?

There’s not a single thing out there that even comes close to GPT-4. Not one that I’ve used anyway. Benchmarks be damned, it’s the experience that matters and I’ve yet to have an LLM blow my mind the way GPT-4 does.

Umm.. no. I’m pretty sure when science was “invented” (whatever that means), there was no way to share your research with “the world”. You wrote it down in a book in you cared to reproduce it.

Stop gate-keeping science. Observe, Predict, Test, Repeat. That is science. Kids do science when they watch adults do things. Just because you aren’t sitting in a lab publishing things no one reads doesn’t mean you can’t “do science.”

No doubt. This is the dichotomy of leadership. The alternative is don't become a manager in a bad organization. But barring that solution, your only alternative is to grind on both sides of the wall until you've either got breakthrough... or you get fired.

It's not a good answer, but it lines up with the reality I've experienced.