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.

Are they? As the article OP shares suggests, these films quietly make us compare our lives to what is portrayed on screen. This is advertisement 101: display people in enviable positions to portray a sense of longing for a lifestyle that one would not normally seek. A food commercial isn’t selling you a product, it’s trying to make you hungry.

If all you wanted out of these rom coms is the portrayal of a carefree life, you could just watch pharmaceutical, banking, or insurance ads.

The average human considers the Pythagorean theorem “sophistication”. Let’s not take our education for granted.

Other than making sure to be wearing your glasses if you are near sighted enough that your local licence requires it, glasses are an irrelevant factor. It’s not like you are going into active combat duty…

I dunno. “Man of science” has a really nice ring to it. (“Woman of Science” too.)

Reject the temptations of short term convenience and adopt sustainable consumption.

Demand ownership of goods. Demand offline-first.

A financial, legal, or even just a tit-for-tat incentive is realistically all it would take. You assume that some utopia that has shed those ideas is the only one capable of such technology.

In reality, it’s greed and self-preservation that is running this show, and this is all that is needed to produce awe-inspiring feats.

The Design of Everyday Things

Lemmy lacks niche interest communities, beyond stuff like Linux.