Levitz

Pointing out that these criticisms seem completely unprincipled is not inventing a conspiracy.

Moderation as in "You can't call the other posted 'fuckface'" and moderation as in "I will delete every mention of this news story because it's negative to the agenda I want to push" are not, at all, the same thing.

In fact, I wouldn't call the latter "moderation" at all, rather it's mods abusing their power to push political propaganda, but they do it through moderation in terms of action.

Damn it's almost as if this was a conversation we should have had around 2018 at the latest. Like evident bias in social networks was a real concern all along.

What was the response every single time? Ah yes. "Get your own Twitter".

I despise most social networks, this one included, but I can't overstate the degree to which the audience deserves this.

Absolute no lessons learned though. Maybe Musk has to buy Reddit too for people to get a clue.

We put up with it mostly because it enables a lot of communication to happen at all.

You want to hold the corporations legally liable for the content their host, you can say goodbye to basically reddit as a whole, any twitter clone, youtube comment sections and a whole more stuff.

This is ultimately silly but, I thought this dialogue was with the Flash? Isn't it this one? https://i.redd.it/vmmv2d3h2q181.jpg

> The decent people won't hear them on Twitter/X, and the decent people will wonder what's wrong with them if they persist in supporting that thing.

Escaping this warped version of morality is precisely what many seek when browsing the site and the reason why many celebrated Musk's purchase.

Also why many say that bluesky is a shithole.

Fairly certain Occam's Razor would point to "they don't have the capabilities" rather than that.

>that techno-optimism has aged very badly, after all

There is no way that the kind of progress that happened in the last 60 years doesn't make it into the history books for centuries, very probably millenia.

I'm just utterly lost as to how someone can actually say this, I could bring up numbers on hunger, or child mortality, or the enormous, mind-boggling in degree, improvements in the quality of life of the average person, or how absolutely crazy the concept of taking progress for granted is.

It'd be easier to convince me that grass is blue.

>Our culture is so steeped in Snow’s worldview at this point that it doesn’t quite make sense that things have intrinsic “being” and “ends” to which they are objectively and irrevocably oriented. It’s ultimately all raw material to be fashioned to purpose.

But it's not? Technology has progressed, sure, and with that material reality changes. It enables stuff, doesn't dictate the use it gets.

I can absolutely understand a defense of the humanities based on human appreciation, life, subjective beauty, whatever you want to call it. Life is more than an optimization game.

...But then it should adhere itself to that. This simply is not the case, under this pretense, the social sciences are an exhaustive argument in favor of Snow's position.

It is no coincidence that in academia there's problems in one side that are much less prevalent in the other. Nor that it was the humanities who started taking the name of science for credibility.

English is my second language, with that in mind, I felt it may be interesting or amusing to some the parts which were "hard" for me to understand.

>Michaelmas term lately over

I had no idea that "Michaelmas" was even a thing. Nor do I think I have ever encountered the formulation of "term lately over"

>As much mud in the streets as if the waters had but newly retired from the face of the earth

This puzzled me, as I'd imagine, if there's no water, there surely would be no mud. Apparently a reference to the great flood which makes it make sense.

>and it would not be wonderful to meet a Megalosaurus

This one was funny since I properly understood (I think?) that it's meant to give a feeling of the savage, untamed, natural feel of the elements taking over London. But then I thought a reference to a Megalosaurus couldn't possibly be that. And it seems it is?

The rest was way easier, although I had to make sure what "Dogs, undistinguishable in mire" meant.

If the process is the product, then anyone who is not involved with the process has no right to say anything about the product.

Not to mention, there's a lot of stuff beyond an "aesthetic experience". Videogames have historical value, and they have relevancy at the very least as a testament of the state of the industry at any given point.

Legend of Dragoon, for example, integrated QTE-like controls in its attacks, even as a turn-based game. FFVIII, released the same year, implemented interaction in a somewhat similar way. These two are very early predecessors to mechanics Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 much more recently used. That has value.

If anyone wants to establish random conditions as to why they consider a work to be worthy or not, they may have those. But then they should keep them to themselves, rather than pretending people shouldn't care about something because of the way it was done. It's like the classic situation of someone complaining about how some open source project doesn't do something exactly in the way they like. I have nothing but contempt and despise for that sort of people, and it's a whole order of magnitude worse here, where the "problem" stems from their political stance, which nobody with a pulse should give a crap about.

>Or is it only when the people doing it eat more rice than us that it is bad?

It's definitely different when the player doesn't even have to play by the market. Comparing US companies and Chinese companies is not apples to apples.

Not very...?

In the west, billionaires are often able to get extremely favorable treatment by the law as an expression of the power money gives. This is not the case in China, in which the party stands at the top.

In practice that's just a difference of incentives that I'm not sure at all is beneficial for anything but an authoritarian regime.

It doesn't matter if they get it, because they wouldn't care either way. They would just pivot to "but more are destroyed this way" or "but these have value or they wouldn't buy them" or some variant of it.

There is no logical train of thought. It's not about logic.

It's an excellent play by them, using moral outrage to the benefit of the project. When life gives you lemons...

The outraged people don't care. They hate AI, and so anything surrounding AI that can be evil is evil. Books are good, AI destroys books, AI is bad.

Furthermore, they like that AI is bad. Because they think it's bad, and being right feels good.

The degree to which his works have been dragged through the mud by a bunch of people who insist on calling everything they don't like "capitalism" can't be overstated. The majority of people complaining about capitalism don't even have a coherent definition of it, it's a disgrace.

Not to remove any merit from Poland, but I think the EU deserves a bit of recognition here.

It's actually worrying that people seriously believe stuff like this.

These are two completely different types of mistakes.

LLMs are, by now, pretty good at not making "code doesn't work" and "math doesn't work" kind of mistakes when writing code. These are also "easy" things to get good at, you learn what each part does, understand the abstractions, ensure it makes sense, and go on with your day. Unit testing helps here.

LLMs are not that good at not making "this works wrong" kind of mistakes. Maybe the code compiles and does what it has to do, but maybe it's 2 lines of code with 6 lines of comments (looking at you Claude), maybe it defines three helper functions it doesn't really need, maybe it does something "here" when it should be doing that something "there" instead, maybe it finds itself in a framework and completely disregards how the framework is supposed to do things, etc etc. These are harder things to get good at and you WILL end up with an unreadable mess if you disregard caution and let the LLM go at it.

The article includes interactive graphs and scrolling animations that explain them, as well as data.

By now, such things are so prevalent that I don't think it would even make the news anywhere.

It's a form of engaging, plus it's a rant.

I've yet to see good outcomes from self-infantilizing.

It's just really hard to affirm that something has "no practical use whatsoever". Maybe it doesn't have use "now", maybe it doesn't have "direct" use but can be used for another finding that is useful, Math has a long story of finding out stuff that turns useful later on.

Yes, how does the LLM make a difference there? Inexperienced developers write bad code. Hell, experienced developers who are outside their domain write bad code too, then you later realize that it's hard to read, or that it leads to architectural problems or such, and hopefully learn from the experience.

It's harder to convince people to all agree on the same, different from the norm, thing.

If you've got 5 people in a car and you play ABBA in every road trip, then one day you suggest to change, the problem is not in being okay with "something else", but on agreeing what that other thing should be, set against the already known thing.

That's why there's so much infighting in the left.

The "left" as in the party, sure, not that much of an authoritarian leaning.

The "left" as in the pervasive group that crawled out of Tumblr, took hold of Twitter back in the day, and has a stronghold on Reddit now? Those do care about what you can say, think, watch and read, and the more they can control, the better. The US right can only dream to have half as much control as the left has had in the last three decades.

Then that's the point. You know the code sucks, the guy who vibecoded it either didn't know or didn't care. That's the added value.

With the ruckus, I thought this would be something that was displayed in Google Earth.

I can't grasp how this is an issue at all? There are other 20 services you can use to do this exact same thing.

>This is a nakedly hypocritical stance, but completely understandable from a company-needs-to-make-money standpoint.

No, it's perfectly reasonable once you get down to reality.

China is not going to care about IP. That's just a fact. So either nobody cares about IP (at the very last in this context) and any AI company can just do whatever with data, or Chinese companies have to be held up to scrutiny.

We don't have the privilege to be able to hold western companies to higher ethical, legal, and environmental standards and not risk competitiveness.

That there is a whole lot of people right now who insist on doing above and still somehow praise China at every turn is something historians or news outlets will have to make sense of in some 5 years time.