El Barto @ elbarto777 @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

2,578

Joined

2 yr. ago

Don't feed the trolls.

I know this is a joke, but to be fair, a good chunk of Americans are highly educated. It's just that the morons are more motivated to vote (and yes, I see the irony of not voting as a moronic thing to do.)

By the way, Mullvad rocks!

I completely understand your position and yes, organizations blocking VPN traffic is some major bullshit.

Like apps that ask for your location when they can perfectly function without it. Don't provide me with a "Never ask me again" checkbox? Fine, I'll play this game every time. Stop working because now you demand location? A stupid game app? Uninstalled.

But that's the thing, man. You can't just make a blanket statement like "under 18 can't consent" when there is no universal law stating so.

If you said that under 18 people can't consent in some jurisdictions from the very beginning, we could have saved so much typing.

Ok, friend. In that case, we're on the same page.

Teens of a certain age can consent. But I agree that some 40 year old wanting and attempting to have sex with a 17 year old is a fucking depraved predator trying to take advantage of inexperience.

It was about sending a message.

I don't know why people put up with BS just to play some game.

I guess the neurons that activate in their brains are the same that activate in the brains of smokers that are aware that smoking causes cancer, yet they do it anyway.

Understood. And yeah, language is definitely an interesting topic. "Why do you say 'So be it' instead of 'So is it'?" Most people will say "I don't know.... all I know if that it sounds correct." Someone will say "it's because it's a preterite preposition past imperfect incantation tense used with an composition participle around-the-clock flush adverb, so clearly you must use the subjunctive in this case." But that's after studying it years later.

Specifically blacklisting a group of users because of the technology they use is, by definition, “targeting”, right? I mean, if not, what qualifies as “targeting” for you?

You may be right. I guess it's a matter of semantics. But the way you described it sounded more nefarious. "I'll target this group of VPN users because fuck them, I hope they all die in a tsunami!!!!" when it's more like "ugh, another VPN bot. The 9th this hour and I'm hungry. You know what - I'll just block VPN altogether and go fix me a sandwich." Maybe that's just my perception.

But anyway - it's Joe Blogger's machine, at his home, for him to do whatever he likes. Some rando from the street knocks on the door and says "excuse me, do you mind if I send an e-mail from your computer?" Joe Blogger can perfectly say no, not even an excuse is owed.

You'd have a point if it was a business or a corporation. Some home machine? Out of billions? Why bother?

I guess we're two pedantic folks. I enjoy these discussions. I sometimes gain some new knowledge out of them.

That's why I said that the avatar should be the same for all court cases. Let's say Microsoft Office Clippy, though it could have been a stick-man or Bob Ross.

lol holy molly!

Except that they can provide consent. In the U.S. alone: https://www.ageofconsent.net/states

So, some states allow it, some don't. But there you have it. In some states (and countries), under 18 people can consent. Now, show me how you're going to move the goalpost now.

I'll stop arguing with you because you must be a troll.

Any person who says "children can consent" is fucked up, I agree. Except that that's not what I said.

People under 18 can consent. They are not necessarily children. I don't know what the age cut is, probably under 15 or 16. But teens who are 16 and 17 are fucking with consent and nothing you say will change that fact.

By OP I meant the parent poster of this comment thread - which it turned out to be you lol. I hadn't noticed, sorry about that.

But anyway. I see what you're saying now.

The avatar is an unnecessary distraction. Can the video be just audio? Use that. Can the video be audio and text? Use that.

Plus if plaintiffs and defendants can sometimes get away with certain outcomes because of what they look like (this has been studied and observed), imagine criminals using cute little teens that happen to look like the judges' kids to argue the case.

I'd say a compromise would be that the avatar be the same for all court cases; chosen by the court system. I'd be sort of okay with this.

And the whole AI destroying the planet is a topic for another moment.

You're comparing two different things.

Of course I can reflect on how I came with a math result.

"Wait, how did you come up with 4 when I asked you 2+2?"

You can confidently say: "well, my teacher said it once and I'm just parroting it." Or "I pictured two fingers in my mind, then pictured two more fingers and then I counted them." Or "I actually thought that I'd say some random number, came up with 4 because it's my favorite digit, said it and it was pure coincidence that it was correct!"

Whereas it doesn't seem like Claude can't do this.

Of course, you could ask me "what's the physical/chemical process your neurons follow for you to form those four fingers you picture in your mind?" And I would tell you I don't know. But again, that's a different thing.

You are right in that specific case, but I was thinking of another case of pronunciation: where to put the stress.

Co-operative ---> co ó perative Re-elect ----> re e léct.

But maybe OP wasn't referring to that.

Albeit comes from all-be-it?!?!?!?!?!??! You just blew my mind!

I surely hope so.