How about your data? Like I said before, I'd be happy to see the data. You've thrown some numbers off the top of your head, but I'd rather see the raw gathered data.
299 karma · joined November 13, 2023
How about your data? Like I said before, I'd be happy to see the data. You've thrown some numbers off the top of your head, but I'd rather see the raw gathered data.
If I try it myself, it'll be done right, and I won't keep the stats in my head. I know how fallible my own perception is, and as somebody with an anxiety disorder, I know how easy it is to read patterns out of thin air. For some people, reading patterns that don't exist seems mystical or illuminating, for me, it's a sense of constant unease and fear. I can't be universally open to just accepting things, or reading patterns with my intuition, because my intuition is that everything is potentially poisonous and I'm definitely going to die in less than a week.
I'm pirating something that I would gladly pay for if they'd just let me. I'm not going to do a VPN; that would be more work than piracy in the first place (and besides, Channel 4 demands a UK address and even a UK credit card). It's downright ridiculous.
It's better than cable was, no argument, but it's like we passed right through the bright future, ripe with possibilities, and landed at marginal improvement.
For that experiment to be fair, you'd have to interact with them, and then they would have to write their guess and confidence down without you knowing what they're writing, and then afterward you'd have to collate the information.
This is the common thread that I've always seen, as someone who used to be very interested in the paranormal and supernatural. When you actually start measuring things properly and controlling for biases, the supernatural mysteriously disappears. It's only there when it can't be proven. Human imagination is extremely powerful. Remember the story of Clever Hans. Everybody, including the trainer, believed the horse could do math: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans
This story comes into my head whenever I see psychics and readers of anything like this. Nobody is lying. Everybody believes it, even when it's not real. You can read body language and pick up on things without even understanding how. It's interesting, because you seem to be the opposite of me. I started out open to much of what I now consider hoodoo, and became a naturalist and a skeptic through my experiences. You had the reverse path. I suspect the answer may lay closer to the middle than either side, but I'll keep with what can be objectively shown in well-controlled tests.
You don't blind people to their own birthdays, you mix real astrological predictions and readings with randomized ones, and see if the results fared better than random chance. I'm very skeptical of astrology (to be completely honest, I completely reject it), but I am trying to take part in a real conversation here. I believe that astrology is complete bunk, wall to wall, but I'm open to reading more on it and talking to you about it. I don't want to attack anybody for their beliefs.
-lN, --line-length=N, -l N, --line-length N
All work the same, set line length to N.
-iSUFFIX --in-place=SUFFIX, -i NEXTARG --in-place NEXTARG
Don't all work the same. The argument is only actually taken if it's attached to the flag directly. In the latter two forms, no backup is made.
GNU mktemp is similarly annoying, but different, with the --tmpdir flag.
-pDIR, --tmpdir=DIR, -p DIR, --tmpdir NEXTARG
Only the last one is different. If you use --tmpdir literally without attaching an argument to it, it defaults to $TMPDIR, otherwise it takes in DIR.
This is inconsistent and unpredictable. A flag should either take an argument or not.
I also dislike Python's argparse variable-length nargs behavior for similar reasons. Even with an integer nargs, it makes for an ugly command line, but with variable-length ones it just gets hideous, and can make it impossible to pass an argument beginning with a hyphen to a flag.
Secure software happens because of a culture of building secure software, or processes and requirements. NASA doesn't depend on individual developers "just doing the right thing", they have strict standards.
The argument against current AI progress isn't anti-technology, it's pointing out that these things can have a hugely negative impact that's mostly being shouted down or swept under the rug in the name of "progress". The climate crisis is pretty serious business, and the AI power consumption is making it worse, not better. The risk of huge amounts of unemployment are being mostly handwaved away as "yeah, that's not gonna happen, we always make jobs out of somewhere".
I'm not against the idea of a fully-digital currency, even a crypto-currency, but Bitcoin is never going to be viable.
Compare the data. Mozilla may be less honest than Google and Microsoft (a premise I also disagree with), but they are demonstrably harvesting much less data.
Sometimes cost of implementation isn't the only consideration.
The reason I'm a pessimist is that I mostly see society preserving the status quo. I don't see AI democratizing things and freeing us, because we have fetishized the concepts of work and profit that we can't imagine a society that functions properly without demanding those two things be put above all else.
I don't envision a dystopia or a utopia, I envision a future where AI disenfranchises people who should be taken care of, bolsters profits of the already powerful, and replaces the most fulfilling human pursuits without actually saving people from unfulfilling toil, mostly because society will bend backwards to try to preserve the status quo.