As a technical writer, I don't use Deep Research because it makes me worse at my job. Research, note-taking, and summarization are how I develop an understanding of a topic so I can write knowledgeably about it. The resulting notes are almost incidental. If I let an AI do that work for me, I get the notes but no understanding. Reading the document produced by the AI is not a substitute for doing the work.
> False. Americans taught for liberty from oppression. Same for Irish. Calling them terrorists is the slander of colonialists.
The Americans were the colonialists. They fought to evade taxes and to be free to steal land from its indigenous inhabitants, in pursuit of which they committed a genocide. The latter, in particular, was strongly opposed by the British government. A 1763 Royal Proclamation prohibited settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains, reserving lands for indigenous peoples. After alleviating themselves of those restrictions, the freedom-loving Americans then practiced a brutal form of chattel slavery for many decades after it had been outlawed by more civilized nations, including the Empire they had fought to be free of.
Yes. Because a "trustworthy person" is one who has demonstrated their authority, who has experienced the work in its full form, who has the taste and experience to make a determination as to its quality and usefulness, and who is capable of presenting reasoned arguments that support their opinion. Such people exist.
In the current climate, it may seem odd to trust the opinion of a fellow human instead of AI summaries and your personal predilections, but that is exactly what I am arguing we should do.
The alternative is to find people you trust, or who are widely considered trustworthy, and read what they recommend. The canon was invented to solve this problem.
Resistance to free market economics is not necessarily Marxist. Old-fashioned one-nation conservatives also find offshoring of this sort objectionable. If you consider the job of the state to be to cultivate a stable, cohesive society, you're going to favour regulation of actions that undermine that objective, including business strategies that erode the local skill base and economy.
That's one possible inference. However, it would also be consistent to claim that there is a fundamentally uncomputable and impossible-to-artificially-replicate "mechanism" underlying human intelligence.
It is not polite to assume that you, after a brief amount of thinking with no background knowledge, have overturned centuries of empirical and scientific knowledge of canine behavioural heredity. It is astonishingly presumptuous. And it is, indeed, peak HN arrogance to make that assumption.
Counting is very time-consuming, important to get right, and easy to get wrong. I expect quite a few businesses are happy to pay that for fast, accurate counting.
Risk isn’t an absolute. Open systems may be verifiable, but they are also more difficult to use, inconvenient, and lack the features users want. So most people won’t use them or will use them badly. Apple reduces privacy risk relative to open solutions used by non-expert users. The purist approach to privacy increases risk to ordinary users. It’s better to be pragmatic; Apple isn’t ideal, but it’s better than the realistic alternatives.
It’s not a dichotomy, but an observation about how data privacy tends to work in the real world. You can easily refute it with practical examples of how openness has actually improved privacy for the average user relative to Apple’s closed, managed privacy programs. Would an average non-technical Apple user be exposed to higher or lower security and privacy risk if they moved from Apple platforms to open platforms?
Lack of openness means a lack of privacy in theory, but in practice, openness often results in less privacy. The average user lacks the knowledge, time, and motivation to install and configure open systems to maximize privacy. They're likely to make mistakes that expose private data.
A closed system that prioritizes privacy will result in more users benefiting from greater privacy overall, even if it does give the platform more control than is ideal. And that's the issue with the wallet ads: Apple makes users more secure on average, but it depends on user trust, which it just betrayed.
Those who can take advantage of total control are a minority, and they are not really the people Apple cares about.
It reads like the work of a professional writer who uses a handful of variant sentence structures and conventions to quickly write an article. That’s what professional writers are trained to do.
Most morally mature people practice that sort of reasoning. They take into account intentions, likely consequences, the state of knowledge of those involved, and other complicating factors before coming to a conclusion.
Because people of all political persuasions tell lies for attention and to support their political agenda. It is sensible to withhold judgment until there is sufficient information to make a reasonable determination on the balance of probabilities. That may mean witholding your righteous indignation for a day or two, but that's a price worth paying.
The Hague Conventions and the Kellogg-Briand Pact. Although, in reality, it was a matter of the winners deciding on a suitable punishment for the losers. They did, however, go to considerable lengths to find legal justification in international law for the prosecutions and punishments of Nazi leaders. They could have just shot them: Churchill and Stalin both supported summary execution, although Churchill later changed his mind.