Spotify paid ridiculous sums of money, specifically to get Joe Rogan.
They absolutely do not care about complaints about tate.
Not to say you shouldn't try, you should, just that it's screaming into the void until the monetary price of continuing support is greater than at least some combination of sunk cost + potential profit. ( so $250m + whatever their profit projections are ).
The differences here are that ORM and web frameworks weren't actively making the job harder and the sheer surface area of the problem.
If you fuck up with a framework or an ORM, it generally just fails to work, the magic internals might not be super helpful with their error messages, but such is the nature of the tradeoffs.
If you fuck up with an LLM you get something that generally compiles and looks like it should work, that's much more of a problem for both you and anyone who then needs to go trawling through, looking for the issues.
Mental illness is never an excuse for doing shitty things.
It can be, someone having a psychotic episode ( that couldn't reasonably be prevented or mitigated ) that hurts the people around them has a legitimate excuse for the outcome.
Part of the actual definition of mental illness could broadly be interpreted as impairment or outright loss of reasoning and cognition.
It does require us to give them treatment to avoid harming others.
Agreed.
Though i'd say, provide the framework and access to treatment, but i think we mean the same thing.
It is dangerous to not broadly paint society as mentally I’ll.
That's a very subjective take, with very vague language and almost no value as a talking point without more specificity.
To be clear, i'm not expecting an essay or anything, i just can't really respond without more information about what you mean.
Look south of you. At least 30% of the US population is mentally ill, and they should all be given free treatment for this illness.
An interesting perspective, if somewhat US centric, i mostly agree.
None of which addresses my original criticism that the definition of mental illness isn't something that should be ascribed to " all 'terrorists' ", it means something relatively specific and terrorism isn't a good synonym.
Are all "terrorists" by definition mentally ill, doubtful.
Without even getting into the subjectiveness of the term "terrorist", lets take your example.
There are plenty of situations where you can end up with that point of view and not have a legitimate "mental illness", because that term means something relatively specific and isn't a good enough fit with which to broadly paint all members of a group.
Another example of why it doesn't fit is that there are plenty of people who are evil/bad/morally bankrupt (for whatever frame of reference you are using to determine such things) that shouldn't get to use mental illness as an excuse for doing shitty things.
To admit that you’re wrong would be to admit that your view is the weaker one.
Perhaps I'm playing in to the scenario OP is describing but I'd argue that being wrong (let's assume for this example it's provably, objectively wrong) isn't necessarily weakness, sometimes it's just incorrectness.
i'm possibly drawing a pedantic line between weakness (a potentially valid, but weaker argument) vs incorrectness ( an argument that is provably, objectively incorrect ).
Perhaps i'm just describing the difference between subjective and objective arguments ... hmmm, not sure
The law is the law in the very specific contexts in which it applies and is heavily open to interpretation and bias, which is (in theory) why trials and lawsuits exist.
I would lay money on them not giving a single solitary fuck unless it affects their bottom line somehow.