Does the absence of a “baby on board” sticker imply “don’t worry about us as much! Feel free to be more aggressive” ?
Well yeah. If you're at fault in an accident and you killed a baby, the jury is not gonna be happy with you. If you killed a non-baby maybe they'll let it slide depending on circumstances.
Caffeine pills are probably a lot easier to accidentally overdose on. If you make coffee you can see the beans for yourself and have a rough idea of how much caffeine you could be getting (if imprecise). With pills you have to take the manufacturer's word for it. Maybe one of them decides to cut corners and put way less caffeine than they say, you think you've been taking X milligrams of caffeine and know how you react to it, but then try a different brand and get surprised with way more than you were expecting. Not to mention how it's easy to take a bunch of pills as opposed to the more time consuming and unpleasant process of brewing and drinking large volumes of coffee, which isn't something an unaware person can easily do by mistake.
And then of course talking to these servers can be in any language that has a library for it or even just handles network requests, although Python is a nice choice. Possibly the process of training models is more heavy on the Python dependencies than inference is, haven't actually done anything with that though.
I think "pranks" that involve misleading everyone in audible range into fearing for their lives would reduce property values regardless of open house timings
The hack revealed that the archived chat logs are not end-to-end encrypted between the modded version of Signal that TeleMessage offers and the ultimate location where it stores the messages
lol wasn't that supposed to be the whole point, what are they even doing
I think the bigger issue here is that you are obviously uncomfortable with the idea of approaching people in public and your parents are treating this as irrelevant and something you are supposed to just force yourself to do it anyway despite feeling like the situation is wrong and threatening. You shouldn't need to justify not wanting to do that by appealing to some kind of cultural authority about what is acceptable to society.
Personally even as a man it normally freaks me out when strangers approach me in public. It just feels like a very unusual, unexpected and potentially unsafe kind of circumstance, almost never something positive, there's no way I would trust such a person, so I'm not going to do that to others because it's like I would be inflicting that on both of us simultaneously, and that would of course come through in any interaction I attempted. How could I expect them to be receptive to that when I would never be myself? People may argue, that's the wrong way to feel and so it doesn't matter, replace that attitude with a better one, as if they themselves could easily substitute a totally different way of being for how they are.
If you need an invitation in order to feel safe in a social situation, I would say it is ok to demand that people respect that and not mock you for it.
For that you would have to completely change how currency is issued and managed. Money is created by being borrowed directly or indirectly from the central bank, and the reason it is possible for those loans to later be repaid is because even more money is loaned out later, so it's not going to be a game of musical chairs where there isn't enough money going around to pay them all back, they keep bringing in more chairs. There is always an increasing amount of money in the system, and they make it that way on purpose to keep things running the way they want them to.
Personally what I hate about this setup is, a person who meets the requirements to obtain a business loan can now take this money that was created out of thin air, use it to coerce labor out of people who have no way to get money other than working, and keep the profits. What if our lives would all be better off working a bit less? Too bad, that decision isn't up to us, how much we must work is indirectly decided by monetary policy, which the average person realistically has zero influence over, and the goal is a high level of "economic activity", ie. as many people as possible subject to financial coercion.
I want an AI that figures out who would be likely to want to hear from me, and prompt me to start a conversation with them. That would be way better than Meta owning an ever increasing share of my attention.
Here's an idea: gameplay sort of like Goblin Cleanup, you have various chores you have to do cleaning and arranging the various levels of the tower at night while the dragon is home, and your work has to pass an inspection. Then during the day you are locked in your room, and have some ability to watch a prospective rescuer attempt the dungeon crawl without your direct input. But you can strategically arrange items, enemy spawns, and Dark Souls style hints to try to tip the scales during the chores phase. So kind of like a tower defense game in reverse where you are trying to lose.
Not even just because people are idiots, but also because a LLM is going to have quirks you will need to work around or exploit to get the best results out of it. Like how it's better to edit your question to clarify a misunderstanding and regenerate the response than it is to respond again with the correction, because there is more of a risk it gets stuck on its mistake that way. Or how it can be useful in some situations to (if the interface allows this) manually edit part of the LLM output to be more in line with what you want it to be saying before generating the rest.
I haven't really had negative interactions with hexbear users since instance blocking and blocking like 30 users I noticed being assholes way back. Maybe they're still responding to my comments without my knowing but idc
Complex requirements for social media websites to verify the identity of users, respond to spurious automated takedown requests, provide authorities with backdoors, etc. I think instead of explicit bans, it's more likely they pass a regulations that are made for large websites with lawyers and algorithmic moderation, which are in practice not something fediverse instance operators can safely deal with and go against the basic values of the open internet.
They mentioned Microsoft updating privacy agreements at the same time as other companies, and OP mentioned that the context was a discussion of a Windows ultra-keylogger type of feature, the implication is they're in on this shit too, and Linux is a way to not use Windows.
I couldn't find a comparison between the two (though the first sentence of what you quoted seems to acknowledge it), but I did find this article which makes an argument that the meaningful ecological impact of cats is context dependent:
There is general agreement that free-roaming cats can pose a significant risk to wildlife populations; however, the credible evidence is quite clear that this risk is limited to very specific contexts (e.g., small islands) and even then is likely only one part of a larger story. Sweeping claims that lack necessary context (e.g., conflating island and mainland environments) confuse the issue and impede productive conversation about how best to manage free-roaming cat populations.
Published research and mainstream media accounts often focus on areas where free-roaming cats come into conflict with protected native wildlife species [46–49]. Although this attention is understandable, it’s important to recognize that such situations attract attention precisely because they are exceptional.
This seems consistent with what you linked, which also emphasizes islands and protected species. Maybe it makes sense to restrict outdoor cats specifically on islands.
chicken @ chicken @lemmy.dbzer0.com Posts 0Comments 1,230Joined 2 yr. ago
Well yeah. If you're at fault in an accident and you killed a baby, the jury is not gonna be happy with you. If you killed a non-baby maybe they'll let it slide depending on circumstances.