That's as far as I'll go since I am about to head to work, and I've spent enough time playing the game where I'm told to dig for articles by people who don't bother doing it themselves, so hopefully this is satisfactory. The deletion should be telling, there's a lot of retconning and memory-holing going on unsurprisingly.
I distinctly remember US health authorities claiming that surgical-grade masks, perhaps specifically N95s, that I am not 100% sure, were not helpful, and this led to social media companies deboosting posts disagreeing with that assessment and applying labels basically calling them fake. I don't recall if they were banning people at that point. But I am surprised that so few people remember the constant flip-flopping and goalpost-shifting. I would think that anyone paying attention would be very wary of "informationisms" as a result.
By the way, questioning the usefulness of cloth masks after that period would get you shunned or banned on many networks well past the point where we had ample evidence to prove that they were ineffective, so even ignoring the initial screw-up, there is plenty of easily provable information that was systematically censored by Internet information brokers.
Treating content without bias and having some things you don't like crop up next to the things you do like isn't "promoting" anything one way or the other. The moment you start meddling with boosting or deboosting things, you get into censorship territory. This is what the people fixated on "misinformation" or "disinformation" or "malinformation" or "information I don't like" don't get. Doubly so when they act like their favorite scientists, journalists and pundits are always right. Speaking of confirmation bias...
And speaking of masks as well, recall how early on in the corona debacle, The Science said that they don't work... :)
I agree with your takeaway and had the exact same question: does this mean there is a constitutional right to abort at any age, or do the prior legal limits apply? So far I cannot find an answer even in French papers.
Edit: actually, it does state that the [current] law determines the boundaries of that protection.
I think it's nice that some companies try to combat the common complaints of poor communication towards rejected candidates. Sounds like they swung too far in the other direction, I'd rather just get an email too.
Now, can we do something about whiteboarding? Pretty please?
I have never seen a keyboard with a number pad on the left-hand side in my life and I have never bought a keyboard without a number pad. I also don't have coordination issues with my right hand and have never heard anyone complain about not being able to reach their mouse because of a number pad. Go figure.
You could easily fit extra controls on a full-size keyboard as long as the keyboard and mouse are not wider than your shoulders. TKL has no ergonomic benefit, it's just an opinionated design decision which is common today because people don't learn to use a numeric pad. Cramped designs are good for portability, but bad for ergonomics.
Personally, I will never buy a TKL keyboard. I may rarely use the numeric pad, but rarely is not never, and I can think of a few specific use cases aside from typing in numbers quickly that require one. I wouldn't mind a keyboard with even more keys to provide better coverage of legacy layouts.
This is another symptom of the same issue, it's not like they're disconnected. They're able to ignore the elephant in the room and act like the biased output is an affront to people of color when their models depict black Nazis after being specifically aligned to erase white people, or when they express bias in non-US politics after embedding political bias in their training, because that's what's politically correct at this time (though I'm hopeful that we're on our way to some semblance of sanity as the fallout of DEI becomes more and more ridiculous and visible). Could you imagine any big tech CEO aside from Musk criticizing the model's political bias in a US context?
It would. If they weren't enabling current-gen piracy and profiting off of actively exploited IPs, they wouldn't get a tenth of that income, maybe not a hundredth, looking at what other projects earn. Plenty of top emulator developers spend their nights and weekends on hardware research and low-level programming and get zilch for their efforts. I could name several who deserve support more than Yuzu, but they don't withhold updates behind Patreon subscriptions, focus on new platforms to hijack market share, or self-promote by listing all the games you can pirate on their programs - in other words they're passion projects, not money-making enterprises, so far from making thousands a month, most of those projects are lucky to get a fiver here and there from an appreciative user. Anyone familiar with the scene can tell you that Yuzu makes that money because they actively seek it. The fact that it's a highly profitable product focused on enabling illegal activity and not a passion project is what's uncomfortable.
I'm actually surprised it took so long considering they were seeking crowdfunding while openly advertising the piracy use case and raking in thousands of dollars a month (now $30,000 - wow). Patreon rewards can be construed as profit-seeking; Patreon even charges sales tax if you donate under a reward tier (they don't if you go through the no-reward custom donation flow). It's cool to hate on Nintendo for being overly litigious these days, and they deserve that reputation, but with projects where piracy is clearly the main goal, and a significant amount of money is involved, I find it hard to sympathize. Even if it's technically legal, it strikes me as parasitic behavior.
Agreed, every company, from non-profits to startups to corporations of every size seems desperate to capitalize on AI. It doesn't matter whether or not it makes sense to incorporate in their product, say AI and the stonk goes up, so we need to pump AI into everything. Which usually means tacking on some stupid text summarization or ChatGPT interface everywhere. There is no way there is any demand for this shit, and it's already causing problems due to hallucinations. I don't know how much valuations are inflated due to the more AI == more money insanity, but it's definitely worse than crypto, not every company in existence jumped on that train and there was always some healthy amount of skepticism around that tech.
Kind of like self-flagellating climate doomers who don't think (or perhaps don't care) about the implications of destroying social safety nets and overall quality of life for future generations, right. It may be too late to convince millenials that they're doing a far better job at dooming their children and grandchildren than they think baby boomers did to them, but for those with a more open mind it's good to see things from a different perspective once in a while.
I see, I thought that was their support platform for people who can't figure it out from their docs and GitHub. There goes my plan to try out self-hosting.
In case you are unaware, it's considered poor etiquette to share links to login-walled social networks, and something like Discord that forces you to join a chatroom with unknown implications (it may trigger a message drawing attention to you, it may require account verification, it may require manual action from a moderator, etc.) just to access some information, all that on top of requiring an account to view anything, is far worse. You can easily share information through one of the countless Pastebin clones out there.
You are looking for corner cases within corner cases at this point. I know it's uncool to assign the responsibility of children to their parents these days... but if you subscribe to the idea that every system in place has to cater to every possible living situation, you'll just end up with one that doesn't work well for anyone, as evidenced by this post.
That's perfectly reasonable as long as you don't have unrealistic expectations, like thinking that differences can or must be completely eliminated, as if students are dolls we're playing with and don't have their own agency and varying abilities.
Google injecting racial and sexual bias into image search results has also been criticized, and rightly so. I recall an image going around where searching for inventors or scientists filled all the top results with black people. Or searching for images of happy families yielded almost exclusively results of mixed-race (i.e. black and non-black) partners. AI is the hot thing so of course it gets all the attention right now, but obviously and by definition, influencing search results by discriminating based on innate human physical characteristics is egregiously racist/sexist/whatever-ist.
I don't know if you're pretending to be unaware or genuinely ignorant, but no. Japanese society places extreme emphasis on teaching children to behave respectfully in society and these values are taught from early childhood to adulthood. If you want to attribute their low crime rate to gun control you'll have to bring something halfway convincing to the table.
As cool as these look, I can't think of a single instance where pretty slides made a talk more interesting or memorable to me. Buying (okay, pirating) Photoshop might be worth it if you're pitching to investors/businesspeople, but if you're presenting at a conference focus on the content and as long as the slides strike the right balance between information density and readability, it'll be fine.
Lack of opportunities for casual social interactions has got to be a killer for the introverted who work in sausage-fest industries, especially remote workers. If you can find satisfaction elsewhere, the increasingly high hurdle of initiating a relationship in this day and age no longer feels worth it. It comes down to a cost-benefit analysis, not a binary decision about wanting or not wanting a relationship.
The first line is the narrative of the MSM that's in bed with government censors and hate that it's no longer controlled by political interests. It is also directly contradicted by independent studies commissioned by Twitter. But speaking of "misinformation", people tend to parrot what they hear whether it's true or not. Thankfully on Twitter that is less effective, thanks to community notes.
Advertisers leaving is a combination of instability caused by Musk's impulsive decision-making, uninformed bandwagoning based on the perception projected by aforementioned MSM and parrots (AKA peer pressure), and the state of the economy combined with the above forcing them to reevaluate their investments. Advertisement revenue has been dropping everywhere as it turns out.
Please share some examples, I never see crypto scams anymore and pre-acquisition you could go in the replies of any popular account and it would be nothing but that. I'm guessing it's still there but I don't see it because I don't scroll for hours on end and verified posts being boosted at the top suppresses the visibility of any bots. Either way considering how bad the bot problem was before the change in ownership I feel like people have a very selective memory about this problem. I did get a handful of catfishing bot accounts following me a few months ago, but that's about the extent of what I've seen as far as spam goes recently and feeds are much cleaner than they were a couple years back. If you're comparing to how it used to be several years ago then it's a different story.
> It's definitely objectively true that boosting paid-for comments above organically high-engagement comments means your signal:noise ratio is way, way worse.
I'd like to see an objective proof for this alleged objective truth.
The bigger problem that I see constantly nowadays is cherry-picked information and people outright lying about a picture or video that they're sharing, but thankfully the community notes help a lot with that.
Go ahead and flag this comment for not being prefixed with "Grr I hate Elon Musk!"
He's not far off since you do cope with a depressant drug, just a different one with a different risk profile. And I don't know about you, but it tanks my productivity worse than alcohol all the way through the next day depending on the form. So maybe he's making a comment about that.
"People who drink often drive" is a nonsensical statement. People lose their driver's licenses permanently for drinking and driving. People get high on cannabis and drive too. And people smoke cannabis outdoors, which smells worse than cigarettes if you ask me. So as far as public nuisance goes you get the worst of both worlds... except cannabis is the "cool" drug for younger generations, so people will bend over backwards to make excuses and berate you for criticizing it :)