HopFlop @ HopFlop @discuss.tchncs.de

Posts

0

Comments

197

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yeag tgats what I meant with "unsplit". Just do that for work and then unite again for the free time.

I was thinking something more along the lines of splitting the work equally, then synching memories after and then I have way more free tine (I'd unsplit for that).

Do you think that rich people should have to serve shorter prison sentences

Of course not. I completely get your point, you say (correct me if I'm wrong) that time is a fair metric for everyone. I respect that.

I agree, however I think money is too. Sure - some people have more or less money, and some people live longer or shorter lives. But everyone can still do the same in one hour and everyone can still buy the same things for 10€.

What I think is UNFAIR is trying to "convert" one metric to the other depending on personal wealth. If I get a fine, it should be a fixed amount of money IMO and if you charge me with time in some way then it should be a fixed amount of time.

I guess that depends on the metric you use. You say they should be punished by time (and so people who earn money more quickly should have to pay more). However, I see many problems with that and I think it would result in much less fair fines than now.

Picture two persons, one living in the countryside, one in a big city. The second person earns considerably more than the first because life in the city is just more expensive. Both persons have the same amount of money left at the end of the month (after paying the bells etc) but income-adjusted fines would mean person B would have to pay way more.

If it's posession-bases instead (i.e. your fines depend on what you have/own) then what about some person who inherited a large house that is worth lots of money and has an otherwise normal job. This person may also have the same amount of money left at the end of the month as the other two persons but because of his big house, he'd have to pay even more, potentially sell his house because of a small offense.

Well, that would just shift the problem: Now, instead of wealthy people being less deterred, it's the people with a bunch of free time that are less deterred (college kids screwing around, people with no job)...

Also, it doesnt benefit the society any more that the fine's money would (assumuning the community service would be equivalent to the current monetary value). (There are also other problems like verifying the work is actually done and also small fines, like, am I supposed to pick up trash from the sidewalk for 2 minutes for jaywalking?)

1. Lets focus on non-necessity acts here (e. g. traffic violations).
2. Deterring people is not the only goal, it also needs to be fair/appropriate. And this is where, IMO, the income-adjusted fines fail.

Fines should be adjusted depending on the offense commited, possibly also taking into account the intentions. Personal wealth is not a factor that seems reasonable to me to take into account regarding the fairness.

Essentially, I believe that everybody should be treated equally before the law. Nobody should be treated better or worse (or have a better or worse punishment) just because of their social status. That's why I believe that fixed fines are fair and the suggested varying punishments are not. I do recognize that they may deter wealthier people less.

Okay but then what about those poor people mentioned above that need to steal for necessities. Wouldn't we want to deter them the most (as they are the most likely to commit the act)?

It doesnt seem logical to me to say that we should increase the fines to deter (wealthy) people more and at the same time say that we should lower the fines so (poor) people that are currently deterred can afford to break the law (?)...

You have a point but what about stuff like traffic violations? Nobody NEEDS to commit one, so should these fines be the same for everyone?

Also, following your example, person A making 75k/year and person B making 150k/year both have no necessitiy to steal groceries. Yet, if the fine was income-dependent, person B would have to pay way more.

Also, this would mean people with no money or income could do what they want without any consequences.

Im also failing to understand why successful people should supposedly be charged more. It doesnt make a difference if the person who committed the crime has more or less money, so they should be charged according to the crime, not what they have.

"The chicken" by Bo Burnham. Don't be fooled by that title.

Thats 8 square-pounds.

They dont use reason to question their training data. How a LLM works is that basically, you have this huge "math function" (the neural network) with billions of parameters and you randomly adjust the factors inside it until you get a function that gives you the desired output for every prompt that you give it. (It's not completely random but this is basically it).

Therefore, an LLM is programmed in a way so that it best matches the majority of its training data. I also cant wrap my head around it being able to reason.

Using an IDE definety IS programming.

No need to align them like that. Just place them one behind the other and cut off one third on the side (with a single stroke).

I have never seen non-tilting windows. At least in Germany, pretty much every house has these. These windows were invented around 1950 after all...

Its not like the few mosquitoes we have would be smart enough to enter my room through the sides of a lightly tilted window.

Also, the police cant catch you because as soon as they are about to get you, you can just teleport. Alternatively, while in the moving police vehicle, teleport away and then return an hour later. You'd spawn by the road but not in the car anymore.

The position is the same as if you handt teleported in the first place.