You’ve conflated laws and ethics. Does piracy violate some laws in some jurisdictions? Unquestionably. Is every single law ethical? Unlikely.

It’s hollow and thin walled. You’ll be picking shards of glass out of your anus before that thing gets deep enough.

Clown egg number phase.

Any recommended firewall block lists (or allow lists) for Roku?

I am one of those. I ditched Signal and went back to the stock sms app and adopted matrix. Haven’t looked back since. The reality is that Signal dropping support for sms wasn’t going to stop me from using SMS. For that, other people need to be convinced to stop using it at the same time. Signal didn’t have nearly the market size needed to make that happen. And now that card is played, and nothing has changed. Signal is just another messaging app among hundreds. At least matrix offers a real paradigm shift.

Unchecked misinformation and algorithmic control of people’s eyes and brains will be the collapse of civilization before climate change does us in.

Stupid people standing on soapboxes saying stupid shit.

Back in my day, people had to dedicate years of their life before they were given the opportunity to stand in front of hundreds of people and tell them things.

ELI5

Not backsliding into feudalism?

In a statistical regression model, that would be a variable that encodes a specific individual; although encoding hypothetical (the scientific meaning of that word, not the layperson meaning) attributes of that individual is probably functionally equivalent, more useful, and easier to conduct.

There are other benefits of NAT, besides address range. Putting devices behind a NAT is hugely beneficial for privacy and security.

Is a corner with an angle of 180 degrees a corner? If yes, then all shapes have infinite corners and infinite edges.

You expect to own your body? Hah, that’s cute.

Just wait for the enshittification of Neuralink.

“Hard to understand?” Is a question more complex than it might appear on the surface. There are obvious examples of ambiguity in speech which lead to complete misunderstanding.

But “hard to understand?” may also satisfy the criteria of “effort to understand”. Just because a message was understood does not mean the audience was able to hear it effortlessly. And that boils down to consideration.

It’s a two way street. Correcting mistakes because of apparent lack of effort is probably not warranted, but a speaker is not entitled to a happy audience either

As with many online feuds, I think a lot of these problems typically arise because of a lack of operating under the assumption others are acting in good faith.

I think there is a very fine line between prescribing language because of a world view that insists on conformity, and correcting grammer and vocabulary because being clear and understood is kinda the point of language.

Yes and no. I’m sure there is an argument to be made that a house can be too big. Bigger houses require more maintenance, cleaning, higher taxes. Downsizing a house is also a retirement strategy.

Not too surprising if the people making malware, and the people making the security software are basically the same people, just with slightly different business models.

Considering the vast majority of people that walk around naked in the public locker room without an ounce of shame are people over 50 or over 60, I find this comment has got it backwards. There seems to be a universal constant that the older you get, the less you care about what other people think. I know I have experienced this myself, and most older people I ask tend to agree vehemently. It also explains why so many young people are embarrassed by their parents.

My advice to teens and people in their early twenties: don’t worry what other people think of you. No one else is thinking about you much at all.

You can have a capitalist economy without billionaires. It just requires a wealth tax and welfare state. Nothing wrong with small businesses and anti trust.

All that said, UBI is inevitable with the rise of automation, as the value of labour drops to zero. The only question is: will the labour class fight for their share of the pie, or will they roll over and just die of hunger.

You completely missed the point. The point is people have been lead to believe LLM can do jobs that humans do because the output of LLMs sounds like the jobs people do, when in reality, speech is just one small part of these jobs. It turns, reasoning is a big part of these jobs, and LLMs simply don’t reason.