- 0 Posts
- 76 Comments
111·3 天前So they made an intentionally bad chess agent? That also already exists.
People seriously don’t see phones in their dreams? Unbelievable.
Scientists are spending time and money to torture mice simply for fun with no practical use? Sounds very believable
Margin of error assumes the sampling is random and representative, which of course is very hard to achieve in practice and especially with a laughably small sample size. Not really some magic number of truth as you’d like to present it.
That’s a sample of a few hundred people in an online poll. Not the most convincing evidence
Proof that people abstaining from voting dem resulted in trump winning?
Quite obviously through regulation.
So Windows 10 LTSC isn’t affected by this?
Abstracting “meth users” to “drug users” is hell of a leap.
Was looking forward to reading the discussion but it seems like none of the AI proponents actually read it and kept repeating the same arguments as they always have been
Typing works perfectly fine for me in the vast majority of cases.
It was a long time ago I watched an DVD, but I very clearly remember some of them having unskippable ads.
I’m going to take a risk and say you write faster than you type
I have a very hard time believing this. From some quick googling, it seems that experienced writers can do 40 wpm, which is really slow in comparison to an (even an inexperienced) typer. Also, typing has no risk of being unreadable, unlike writing (e.g. doctor’s written notes).
and reaching for a pencil is quicker than launching a program.
Maybe if your computer is really slow.
No need for evidence. The idea of anyone being able to claim anything about a person without proof is inherently flawed. Are you saying that the app has some magical feature which forces everyone to tell the truth? No disgruntled ex can make up things about their previous partner? I would love to see you prove that.
Would you believe me if I told you some systems are used for other things than what’s intended?
Arguing that tea was for “telling on predatory dudes” is like saying backdooring encryption is to catch people spreading CP.
Sounds good to me! With no mention of having to limit our internet usage.
You don’t have the power to decarbonize all electricity or to create and enforce laws to reduce the rate of e-waste. Until this changes, you have the power to limit your bandwidth usage, which is something that would result in less e-waste and less energy usage (and inherently less carbon emissions since all electricity isn’t decarbonized). You’re essentially saying “the paper says you can fix the problem in the future so I don’t give a fuck about the problem now”, which is not very bright.
And if reducing bandwidth waste really were that important, it would have go both ways anyway, with the providers optimising their content (probably forced to do so by regulations in some way).
My god. This might be the most naive thing I’ve ever read. This would be like saying “if carbon emissions were really that bad, oil and coal would be illegal”. Guess what? The climate will be (and has already been) irreversibly damaged if we don’t drastically reduce the amount of carbon fuel being used and no regulations have successfully come close to getting the necessary drastic reduction. Turns out everything that’s bad doesn’t magically get solved by regulations, especially when rich companies which rely on e.g. carbon fuel and bandwidth have major influence over politics due to their massive amount of resources.
“You have to respect the democratic process, otherwise you’re literally a terrorist!”