MinusGix

Generally because there's not that much to comment on, as this is effectively a somewhat prettier ungoogled chromium, and so there's not much room to make positive comments. Though I agree people get caught up in negativity easily.

It is some mix of priorities along the frontier, with Apple being on the significantly controlling end such that I wouldn't want to bother. Your trust should also be based on prediction, and giving a major company even more control over what your systems are allowed to do has been historically bad and only gets worse. Even if Apple is properly ethical now (I'm skeptical, I think they've found a decently sized niche and that most of their users wouldn't drop them even if they moved to significantly higher levels of telemetry, due to being a status good in part), there's little reason to give them that power in perpetuity. Removing that control when it is absued hasn't gone well in the past.

It certainly could, and I wouldn't be surprised if the authors want to try it out on those. You do have issues of past improvements often not quite enhancing more powerful models nearly as much. I'd expect this to possibly not work as well, something like the bigger models ending up with more polysemantic neurons because they're given more ''incentive'' (training time, neuron count, dataset size which they're encouraged to be able to reconstruct) to extract as much possible. This might make so the method performs worse due to this intermingling. (See the transformer circuits website for that) (Though I expect there's ways to recover a good chunk of extra lost throughput/accuracy, maybe by doing extra steps to directly steer the training towards breaking apart polysemantic neurons)

Druid works quite well, and is likely enough for many GUI projects. I'm not sure what your reasoning is that implementing it in a platform-native language will work better. Are you referring to using their platform native UI to get the keybindings + inbuilt widget integration?

As others have said, people have a lot of photos. It wouldn't be too hard to hide them a bit from obvious view. As well, I rarely look at my gallery unless I need to. I just add a few photos occasionally. So maybe once every two weeks I look at my gallery, plenty of time to initiate that.

It isn't uncommon for me to find a site that uses it legitimately. Sometimes for telling the user info, sometimes for reporting an error, and sometimes for other goals. Sure, it'd be better if they did it in a more normal manner (writing their message into an HTML paragraph), but they do use it. But a lot of these sites are dead (though some aren't) and so it for the most part doesn't matter if you remove it now or after three years. They'll still break or lose functionality. Just spit out a warning to the dev console when it is used.

I often do that, but it can be kinda slow (on Windows 10) so Win+R then the executable name if I know that works even quicker.

Its more referring to the concept of realizing there's a solution to the problem and being willing to take it. When I was younger, there was a notable amount of times where I felt cold but didn't bother getting a jacket. Of course, grabbing a jacket from a store may not be an option for a person, but I think you're generalizing every part of what they are saying too much rather than the point they're making.

I think this is more of a matter of scale, like in your ISP and datacenter example, social media could be counted in on that too due to the sheer size of it and influence it can have on people. I agree that not having moderation isn't something we can do, for staying on topic or getting rid of certain users. The benefit of Reddit in this is that sub-communities can be made with harsher moderation policies than the outside Reddit, which allows getting rid of users they don't want. Since this is small sub-communities, if the users who disliked that subreddit really wanted they could make their own alternative and still be accessible to the wider Reddit. This would help avoid the problems of Voat becoming full of people on the extremist end of the spectrum. It wouldn't be a perfect solution, but being shared around reddit and accessible through the same account would make it a lot easier to dilute things like that.

I think the issue is one of scale. Having non-perfect free-speech is fine on your usual forum site, and somewhat has to be used to ensure quality. While, at the absolutely massive scale that Reddit and other social media giants are at, they (in my view) should essentially have very little to no say in what content appears upon the site. Now, individual moderators for subreddits could be more stringent due to being sub-communities (and thus smaller).

This would allow high quality moderation that lets communities focus on topics without as much worry about free-speech issues. Essentially allowing the classic, 'Go build your own social media' be actually possible since the communities that may not like your content are sufficiently small.

While that would benefit StackOverflow, it would cause a lot of issues when searching anything remotely obscure. I've ran into many questions that haven't seen activity since 2012 and don't have any newer ones.

I think that them being equivalently positive is a weird way of looking at it? It ignores what the poster you're replying to is probably referring towards. If you value Romanian ideals over Texan ideals then you'd prefer Romania to get a lucrative economic position of power through trade over Texas as the Romanian government provides more utility to you due to more favorable (to you) ideals.

Though, I personally don't think these companies moving to Texas matters that much, but if there was a mass migration it could certainly shake things up in ways that some may appreciate and some dislike.

Maybe could have it work on a cloned temp file, and then autosaving on losing focus. Opening the same real-file would lead to the same temp-file. Might be able to make manual :w save the temp to the real, but may be better to have it as a separate command.

Hah, I'm the exact opposite. Greatly enjoy very colored themes, but it feels like almost all themes are about 50% white text with only a handful of things colored.

If it was having a person having to make a television show about someone they hated then I would agree, but corporations are _not_ people and so the reasoning does not apply.

Those two statements are not in conflict. Yes, we have done very well for ourselves, but that doesn't mean we aren't irrational and flawed. Just because we have done well doesn't mean we should ignore areas of improvement.

They aren't arguing that you should simply not trust the majority at all, but that you should be willing to evaluate the majority's beliefs. There are obviously limits on this, and I think you are trying for a far too absolute interpretation of what they were saying.

You could frame it as discovery being finding something out about the thing. So you find out the color of the trees in fall, the sun that an asteroid is about to fall into, or a person's name. For invention, you are usually deliberately creating it. Your composer works on the music to become better, and chooses better chords to play. The programmer modifies his code to fix an issue he noticed, thus making the invention better.

I think they are separate. Even if they are 100% related, all from the same factors of psychology, it would still be useful to differentiate them.

A lot of people enjoy watching a new marvel movie once or twice a year while the movies themselves are more or less reiterations of the previous ones. People seem to enjoy the repetition.

Honestly, I would argue against this. While they tend to do simplistic plotlines that are similar to the previous, they're very visibly different and so do not trigger any of the usual "I already watched this." that I get from watching sitcoms.

Though, I do agree that people at times read essays because they reiterate your thoughts back to you, but as you say I'd agree that its more comfort/shared-experiences than the content that they've already seen (ex: reaction videos). At times, I've done this because I know an article will be able to provide an alternative view on the topic to further fuel my own reasoning, or simply helping to ground my reasoning more into words.

But, I do think an essay that is obviously what I already know would be boring. If I had to read an article about basic programming techniques, I'd be likely bored, due to having seen it all before.

There's obviously levels to it, its not "This is a fallacy/incorrect argument" and "This is a good argument". Invocation of expert is not the end of all discussion, as there are non-truthful experts and authorities (such as Government) which are more obviously less trustworthy. That doesn't mean that you should ignore all authority (I've never seen that argued).

Naturalistic fallacy really depends on how much you value the natural state of things, but it is usually used to point out that just because it is 'natural' doesn't mean it is good or sensible to do/continue.

Appeal to emotion. Appeals to emotion are often used to incite people without them thinking through. "They killed our people!" sounds a lot more convincing/inciting than, "They had an altercation which unfortunately escalated, leading to the deaths of several people that we knew". Using emotion to obscure or not properly think about how it came to be to that point and what should be done from then on.

I think you're conflating logic (ex: mathematical logic, or far less rigorous careful reasoning) with an overly strict definition of a logical fallacy.

I personally access 10.0.0.1 and that works at numerous places with wifi portals. Especially useful when my device/browser doesn't automatically detect that there is a captive portal.

This site is likely to get annoyed at Chrome as well. Also, just because Chrome gets away with it doesn't mean its an action that should be accepted purely for that reasoning.

In part this is arguing over a definition of nature. You're going for the obvious "We are part of nature because nature created us and we work within the system." while they're going for the idea of it being more strictly influenced by evolutionary change which we have the ability to 'escape' (escape in the sense that we can go farther than an animal can due to being able to design larger systems without having each step useful). The definition of "we are of Nature" is essentially "we are of Physics". This is true, but its not really useful.

On your morality lines: Morality is a personal concept in people, but it is influenced by society and the people they interact with. There doesn't have to be some objective right/wrong, and so people can say that the scientists were being immoral (according to the person's own moral ideas). The scientists may very well believe they were being moral, or perhaps they didn't think about it (people do that!)

that our nature-created brains have led us to create? Well, as stated before, morality isn't the same between humans. There's no objective authority that decides X is right or Y is wrong, simply social/cultural influences throughout the world.

You could view morality as a way that you think the world/people should behave to maximize some value you hold. Perhaps you value sentient life, and so you hold self-sacrifice to save a dozen people to be a moral good as it continues more sentient life.

It argues against a 'straw man' that I personally have talked with people that think that nuclear war would certainly destroy all of humankind. As well, its not arguing against the nuclear war being Super-Bad, the conclusion even talks about an idea for making nuclear war less dangerous so that it is less likely to kill off as many people.

Nuclear caused extinction is actually a preferable outcome, I'd rather just instantly die than live in a brutal post sociatle apocalypse.

I do happen to disagree with this, but that is a personal decision and I understand why you would prefer that.

I certainly agree, and that is somewhat part of what I was saying.

We do. Even though the world has become safer and more prosperous it is still dangerous to our health and sanity. That doesn't mean we should avoid all risk.

What you are more talking about is the Politicians overstate the chance of dangers and they do it on the most evocative of topics (ex: terrorism, CP, etc).

A high danger we're in is from the potential for our governments to entrench their own powers and encourage potential future totalitarianism for small benefits here and now.

I think you're avoiding the alternative option, that there can be different levels of regulation based on size and power of a company.

There's a rather large difference between Twitter, which has a lot of people using it every day for information, and that of smaller companies. A company like Twitter can influence the fabric of society for good and bad by a large amount, but a smaller company has far less effect. A single standard is a simple approach, but that doesn't make it the best option.

If there was a common cultural idea generated of "blame the person, not the place that serves the content" then that would solve that issue. Personally, I see that we're currently heading away from that, and while we've never had it fully it still appears to be going towards the "blame the service provider" route.

Like a lot of issues you'll likely need to choose a Schelling point (arbitrary cutoff). Some of it is simple inconveniences. It is a lot harder to learn enough psychology, understand your audience, and so on to influence them in comparison to having a program that scans every word they've put on their [social media account here] to decide how best to convince them. That would likely stop a good amount of actors.

If a quite small amount of people had access to and were using the printing press, then that might legitimately be an argument for the government in that country to ban it as it gives them more power over others. Though, once it becomes common and non-secret technology then everyone has been amplified the same way. Now, that 'give everyone the ability to use machine learning to tailor their text to the audience' could be a route your could attempt, but I don't think it makes as much sense for machine learning even if I could imagine a society that has that.

While I do agree that a citation would be useful, just because this decision alienates people doesn't make the alienated group just Republican-Trump supporters or even just Republicans. As it is more a freedom of spreading information issue.

(I don't care what Biden's son does in his free time and it doesn't affect my opinion of Biden much at all).