brazzy

Which specific proposal out of dozens all over the world do you claim to know? And once you have one carveout, the next one is not far. I'm being "disingineous or deliberately obtuse" because that's how the spin doctors and lobbyists are going to paint it.

Sure, but one unfairness is status quo, and the other a viscerally ugly proposed change. It's clear how that's always going to be spun by opponents to the change.

A tax that prices 80 year old grandmas out of their homes and the whole area they've lived in all their lives is going to be extremely politicially unpopular.

This link gets me a shitton of extremely intrusiv ads, some of which look like malware (auto-downloading an "OperaSetup.exe"). Is pastebin already compromised?

This is serious enough that EOL should not matter. Of course, if someone is still running PHP 7 or even older, they're probably not updating anyway.

It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "political correctness". Nobody is making moral arguments that these words should not be used.

Nothing is, so that's not really a useful observation.

It's not just a truism. The point is that sufficient knowledge allows you to understand and avoid or mitigate risks much more specifically. With your example, if you have only freshly fallen snow, and a slope of less than 30 degrees with nothing above it, avalance danger is so ridiculously small that it counts as "safe" for practical purposes.

I think the implicit assumption you may be missing is that "know what you are doing sufficiently" includes knowing when not to do something because it involves unpredictable risks.

Like free solo rock climbing: it's actually fairly safe if you do it on a route you know inside out, that is well within your ability, and in good condition. But if it's not in good condition and holds might come loose, nobody in their right mind - and the knowledge to recognize the condition - would free solo it.

Um... E.coli is an existing gut friendly bacteria, one of the most common ones present in at least 90% of all humans' gut biome. There are only some specific strains which are pathogenous.

> then infect some immunosuppressed political prisoners and see who dies fastest.

A virus that makes victims die the fastest is not, in fact, an effective bioweapon, because it won't spread much. And the "spreads by itself" part is what actually makes bioweapons worthwhile, if you have to manufacture it in bulk and dump it directly on all targets, you can just use a chemical weapon instead.

TDLR for the other two comments: a Japanese mathematician is claiming to have a proof for it, but it is based on an entirely new very complex field of maths which he invented. Getting into it takes years, so other mathematicians are hesitant to invest that much time only to find out that the proof is broken and the field isn't otherwise useful.

It doesn't help that the author is rather withdrawn and not willing to spend any effort in making it more approachable.

Some tried, and said they found gaps in the proof, to which the author responded, but they were not convinced.

And that's essentially the situation since 2018.

Why would they stockpile it when they're used to just buying it in the supermarket?

It's not bought for its long-shelflife property anymore, it's basically just an ingredient in some popular traditional local recipes. Sure, those recipes emerged because the shelflife used to make hard-tack a reliably available source of calories, but that's basically gastronomical skeumorphism.

Today as well. You need special equipment and a lot of time to remove all the moisture without burning it.

Sure, you can probably find a way to achieve a "good enough" result with normal household appliances, especially when it doesn't actually need to be stored for years and you're just going to soak it again for some tranditional recipe.

But it's a lot more effort than most people want to invest when they just want to replicate that recipe.

Ah, and all those women worrying about men following PUA influences, is that also "still a girl issue/hang-up then"?

Guys don't follow that rule (unless they are gay), they worry about women following it. It appears to be originating from a post on the (rather toxic and apparently now defunct) reddit sub /r/FemaleDatingStrategy many years ago, but apparently is still being brought up.

I have to admit that I know very little about formalized proofs, but the article seems to put some reasoning behind this distinction, specifically this statement:

> Because it is only the proof calculi that have proof objects that seemingly need to put everything into the kernel.

I interpret that to mean that for some reason, having proof objects requires or at least encourages putting more logic in the kernel (which is apparently equivalent to having more axioms) and that results in a greater risk of having bugs in the proof checker itself.

Read up on current politics in Taiwan. The KMT, the party that lost the civil war, fled to Taiwan, and still claimed to be the true government of China, is now essentially a PRC puppet.

That's because the primary goal of the spending is not to produce a capable military. It's an expensive, inefficient jobs program, but one that you can get conservatives to support

What's the most unsettling to me is that the one thing that makes it less apt to modern life is the implication that at 8 PM, everyone is at home. Nobody still working or commuting.

Do they even have any direct exposure to the whole AI bubble?

If not, I'd say they don't even count in the "everyone"-

For me they key step to solving it was realizing that

mary_curr - mary_old = ann_curr - ann_old

since they must have aged the same amount of years.

time dilation joke incoming

Yes, but the desparate need is specifically for quick and easy ways to detect AI. If it's error-prone that's unfortunate, but better than nothing. A slow, laborious way, on the other hand, is useless because it doesn't achieve the goal of reducing the workload.

> This is largely because most people are incapable of thinking critically and evaluating substance.

No, with AI it's because it's MUCH faster than evaluating substance, and fast ways to weed out AI slop are desparately needed, since it can be produced so quickly.

The problem is that the substancelessness of AI writing nowadays tends to be subtle and well-hidden (but huge). Focusing on superficial "tells" is basically an attempt of a quick, cheap defense against the imbalance of human effort, where someone can spend a few dollars and a few minutes and e.g. generate dozens of PRs that would take many hours of real human effort to process and fix the deeper shortcomings of.

> Where do we invest, absolutely stunning human support?

That's a complete non-starter unless you're serving some extreme luxury premium market with absurd margins, and/or your customer interactions already require a lot of human involvement. So 99.9% of digital products are right out.

Good human support is absurdly expensive and will easily make your product 10 times more expensive than your competitor's. But almost no customer is willing to pay 10 times more for good support.

Does it matter (why and how) if you can't tell the difference, no matter how hard you tailor the question towards that end?

It's basically the Turing test.

> Meanwhile, in real companies, you have to wait 2 months or more to access an API endpoint in preprod.

> To setup a cross business kubernetes cluster will take 2 years with unknown results.

Do you seriously believe those times will not go down 95% if the CEO pushes for it to get done yesterday because it will save the company millions in expenses?

Wouldn't it be funny if they missing thing is actually the body, and having one to give the subjective viewpoint something to center on directly leads to emerging sentience?

Though I think there's at least one more important thing missing, namely the ability to form memories - to incorporate recent context into the model's weights. I don't think it's a coincidence that this is a very complex process in humans as well (involving sleep and dreams as neccessary mechanisms).