ZeroBugBounce

I'm curious if you can be more specific about the kinds of problems they eventually came around on that they did not care about/understand at first?

I like this kind of "meta-problem" and would be interested in known how to get people more interested in ideas that I intuitively know are useful.

I think you know that's argument is fallacious - getting AIDS from an infected person requires very specific interaction to take place.

But is it pronounced FAY-ta or FAT-a?

It's a business decision which will make them more money.

In Universe A they sell only the most powerful version of the product for 1x price and them make some money.

In Universe B they sell the most powerful for 1x AND a slightly less powerful version for 0.9x price and they make MORE overall profit.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing. There are customers who will want to pay less and not need the most powerful product.

I fail to see how the company in Universe B is morally worse than those in Universe A. One could argue they are superior, in that they offer more choices.

Sure, but then whoever gets to populate the index chooses the winners and losers, because you could just stuff it with different versions of the content or links you wanted to win and the random ranking would should those more often, because they appear in the pool of possible results more often.

> It's far less complicated in terms of options

Could you explain how you figure that in more detail?

I mean, to my untrained eye, it sounds like it wouldn't be so, since in every time slice of the game (equiv. of a turn in Go?) you can have hundreds of points of control - hundreds of levers to choose to pull - and of course that's in every frame (or whatever interval the UI actually allows you input).

The argument is that Didi made it easier for this alleged killer to get his victim into a vulnerable position (as a presumably backseat passenger in his car).

Didi allegedly did not respond to multiple negative comments about this guy's behavior, nor did they expose these comments to future passengers, which might have flagged him as a threat.

If not for Didi, or if they had been more safety-minded as a company, then this guy would not have had the opportunity to rape and murder this woman, allegedly. That's the argument.

I'm not sure about this particular person in question, but it seems to me one never knows who will stick by the principle instead of "their side" until real-world challenges come along to "test" those principles. I'd wager even the persons being "tested" don't really know what they'd do under such circumstances.

My feeling is that it's rare to stick to the principles at hand compared to protecting your own (and I mean for any group/tribe not any specific one).

I think of this theory like how lead poisoning works, where the lead can pass through the blood–brain barrier and substitute in (poorly) for calcium, causing all sorts of toxicity effects. Or how drinking sea water can fool your throat for a second into thinking you've taken care of your thirst.

Online social interactions are plentiful and easy and often don't as quickly or sharply trigger social anxiety. But they are a toxic replacement if you don't get any real interaction with your fellow humans.

So is not agreeing on facts/truth The Great Filter?

I'm not the parent commenter but yes, you both made the same distinction as far as I can tell.

I totally agree with you from the perspective of the driver, passengers and public safety.

I wonder, though, if manufacturers are going to greatly accelerate their progress to level 4 or above from the data they get having level 3 in production vehicles. They may get much more quickly to a higher quality level 4 by having what amounts to a marketing novelty feature in practice in 1000s of vehicles in real-world conditions.

IMO they will do this out of necessity soon enough.

This will mean advertisers can't count exact hits to their ads (or at least would be foolish to do so) so they will probably have to employ some kind of web crawler or HIT services to randomly sample the sites who are supposed to be serving their ads to make sure they are.

But eventually the blocker technology will become much better at blocking page element ads more easily and automatically. Then I guess they will have to think of something else.

Well, I can see it compared to writing and maintaining your own language + all associated tools.

I feel like Java is a "choose your own adventure" type thing. You can opt out of a lot of the bad, in my limited experience.

> 1-the game was never conceived as a headstart product!

True that may be, but the blurb on the "DragonBox Algebra 5+" product on the linked page says:

"It’s perfect for giving your child a head start in mathematics and algebra. "

For context of anyone reading, the second link (mercola.com) has a ton of nonsense anti vaccination articles on it. That's enough for me to wholesale write off anything else the blogger/site might be commenting on, science-wise.