liamwire

> My explanation will not be popular here on HN How is this better than ’bring on the downvotes’?

Moving on, I’ll put this to you: you claim training a ML model against copyrighted text is in violation of the ‘permission’ granted by the rights holder. However, flip this on its head for a moment – that’s basically all human brains do. Clearly, the greatest writers of our time haven’t written their works in a vacuum. Rather, that historical reading and inspiration becomes sufficiently obfuscated that we deem something adequately creative enough to be granted its own copyright.

Fundamentally, how does Copilot differ, other than perhaps being a poor implementation? Is it by not being ‘adequately creative’ enough? Is there some future version you could envision that would be, or is it the principle you’re arguing against?

Australia here as well, no restriction on any posts I can see – how strange.

For when Retool’s team inevitably reads through this: compensate for, and fix this. Until I can see genuine efforts made to repair this situation, I’ve cancelled my account. Shame.

I think this is an incredibly poor take, and done with incredibly poor taste – pun not intended.

Experience is, broadly speaking, able to be considered as a spectrum with both vast breadth, and depth. I believe this holds true not only for external experiences, in this instance cuisine, but also for internal qualia and more compounded experiences.

It is, to my understanding, widely accepted that people are capable of living lives that can be vastly alien to what we might consider ‘consensus reality,’ or everyday life, more loosely. Look towards monks, yogis, and more briefly, psychonauts as examples of living beings with, presumably, internal lives vastly different to our own. Yet in those people we hear accounts of deep personal satisfaction, even euphoria, from no external source. Contentness, at a minimum, doesn’t demand a minimum breadth of experience, or any experience at all, as a prerequisite.

I’d go so far as to argue that the small-mindedness you’ve presumed of this man, may be an acute reflection of your own base assumptions about others.

It pays to be mindful that others lead lives as rich, meaningful, and subjective as your own, even if the set of experiences in question may vary vastly.

I see no good reason to not take this man on his word when he says he truly is satisfied with his life, particularly when he’s at a point where he can reflect back on it – something not afforded to those of us still living what we can only hope to be the bulk of our lives.

Everything I’ve written prior notwithstanding, let me ask: do you actively go out of your way to try every new experience possible to you, costs be damned? If you answer no, then you accept that there’s a radius you choose to set, within which you’re satisfied knowing that the experiences you’ve had thus far, and their costs, are in equilibrium, and that you’re content with not exceeding that boundary. Who are you to say that his ‘smaller’ radius of experience, ignoring the incredible amount of contemplative time afforded to this man, and what that may imply for his internal life experiences, is any less of a valid choice than yours is? Surely you’d then accept you very likely fall within a subset of a larger radius of possible experiences, of which there are people willing to explore past the boundaries you’ve set for yourself.

Ignorance may in fact be bliss, but I wouldn’t be so quick to assume this man is the ignorant party here.

At this point you’re doing nothing more than reiterating falsehoods, and it appears you’ve nothing constructive to add.

At a minimum, is needlessly increasing the workload of an unwitting third party considered a harm? I ask, because I’d be pretty fucking mad if someone came along and added potentially hundreds of man-hours of work in the form of code review to my life.

Unfortunately “no” doesn’t constitute a rebuttal, and the responding commenter makes many valid points.

It is self-evident that this study tangibly involved people in the scope, those people did not provide consent prior, and now openly state their grievances. It is nothing short of arguing in bad faith to claim otherwise.

This is just arguing in bad faith.

I really think this is the way to do it, by delighting your customers if they opt into the saving, and not insulting them if they don’t

Even with the amount of hype around CRISPR, that is... incredible. Turning patients into their own donors feels magical.

I suppose in this instance, the patients wouldn’t need immunosuppressants after their treatment, as I’d expect standard care patients currently need for life?

Those ‘interpretations’ are tangible, meaningful products of harm inflicted on children. Let’s not pretend there’s an alternative – that anyone is using those bits in a different way.

I think this thinking is, at least in part, a result of assuming that the decision makers are optimising for the same outcome as you might expect them to, eg. long-term growth, profitability, etc. rather than, say, bleeding the company of its human equity for short-term increases in monetary profit, that otherwise wouldn’t be attainable, and likely as a result likely furthering that decision maker’s career, assuming they exit before implosion.

Space Law, like ultimately all law, is the law of the party/parties with the biggest guns, as it has almost always been. Any perceived or claimed neutrality so far isn’t likely to remain as commercial interest continues to expand into the space, pun partially intended.

Homosexuality was once considered a disorder, and is now very broadly accepted to be a trait. Could you at least entertain the idea that this could parallel with autism?

In anticipation of some pseudoarguments in the vein of, ‘a disorder causes trouble for the individual; homosexuality does not while autism does,’ consider that, until recently, being openly gay was very much a social hinderance. In a better-structured world, we may have significantly more suitable accomodations for autistic people that would alleviate the societal difficulties they currently face.

> How can you say it’s introduction is joyful?

Sure, if you want to sidestep the innumerable ways the automobile, or more accuracy the internal combustion engine, have completely revolutionised society, you could make an argument...

Except you can’t. Think about the increase in distance and speed at which goods and services can be rendered compared to prior modes of transportation. One simple example that comes to mind is the ambulance, in which that increase may well be the difference between life or death for an unknown but surely enormous population. A similar argument can be made for logistic supply chains delivering medicine, food, sanity products, waste removal, all of which without, mortality would surge. Plague, famine, disease are some of largest killers in human history.

Please tell me again how the absolute gains measured in human lifetimes is anything other than joyful, outside of subjectivity which is an unresolvable debate.

Critically, if I want to use a smartwatch with an iPhone, I’m not limited to the Apple Watch.

I still get the same visceral reaction seeing this as I did back in 2019. Thank you for sharing this.

Excuse my ignorance—is there a resource you could share for doing so with the bootloader and key?

Phenomenal plan, until the next rapid unscheduled disassembly peppers the landscape with radioactive isotopes like a poor man’s dirty bomb.