ang_cire

Except you didn't say "more likely", you said "likely". The former is accurate. The latter is not.

They're not wrong that it was done very publicly, regardless of whether you believe (as you and I clearly do) that they were right to be prosecuted. Luigi Mangione is another example of the panopticon being visibly flaunted by the state, and they were more explicit that time about showing it as deterrence. Literally gave so much surveillance footage to the media to prove how much they could see.

I think you're missing the real intent of their proposal, which is not to give them due process and release them. Their other comments make it very clear they just want certain people to be gone from their local spaces.

I do know "the facts". The fact is that the vast majority of handguns are never used in a suicide or murder. Ergo the average handgun is not "likely" to be involved in one.

The statistic you are reaching for but misunderstanding, is that they are more likely to be used in a suicide or murder than in home defense against an intruder.

A personally-owned handgun is statistically most likely to simply never be used, or only used at a range. The number of personally-owned firearms that are ever involved in a murder or suicide is literally a fraction of a percentage.

But go off!

> A handgun in a house is likely to be used for murder/suicide.

On an article about people who did no research to actually prove out their assumptions, this is perhaps the most ironic comment to be chastising them.

Ironically, those same systems that enabled high QoL are also the ones involved in killing us, whether that's carcinogens everywhere, climate change, resistant bacteria, or even just plain old nukes (or soon drone swarms).

I wouldn't be alive if not for advanced medicine, but if the structures that saved my life are the same ones that constitute our own Great Filter, my life was most definitely not worth the trade. There are too many other people I love to think that.

Exactly. This is the same root cause (imo) as the teaching/learning crisis happening right now in US schools.

> You might ask, why can’t you work less? It’s not as easy as that. If I decide to work less, who is going to cover the hospital? If the hospital aren’t employing other doctors, we can’t allow patients to go uncovered. I accept the fact that I have a duty of care to be on call.

Ultimately, this is a situation in which doctors doing this is worse in the long run.

Burning yourself out to cover for understaffing means both worse life balance for you BUT ALSO worse patient care.

No one quantifies how many people die, or how many diagnoses are missed, or how many patients feel unheard and become disillusioned with going to doctors, because doctors are dead tired and mentally burnt out, because they're trying to do right by patients.

You have to force hospital admin and owners do THEIR JOB, which is (in part) to provide needed staff to run properly, by not letting them exploit or impart a hero complex onto a job.

Except that some games use KLAC on Windows, but also have Linux versions that don't use it, so whether you use Windows or Linux is irrelevant.

If you choose to play Windows-only games because you think that is protecting you from some nebulous group of cheaters who moved to Linux to aid their cheating, I think you don't know the cheat landscape well.

Cheat makers primarily operate on Windows, not because it's easier, but because that's what most players still use. This idea that you're going to avoid cheaters by staying on Windows is honestly the opposite of true. MP games with Linux clients are not the games with massive cheating problems.

Playing slot machines absolutely is many peoples' hobby, unfortunately.

As others have said, why don't you list out your hobbies (as I did mine), so we can understand exactly what recreational activities you think constitute "valid" hobbies? That will also make it easier for me to explain the difference between video games and slot machines to you.

Which is why people have specific problems with loot boxes, yes. But most video games don't have loot boxes.

> So similarly you should only be playing opensource and freeware video games that aren't designed to extract money from you.

"Paying to purchase a game", and "paying to wager money on or in a game" are 2 different things.

I'd also have no issue with someone buying an actual slot machine to sit in their house, so they put in money but also keep the money they put in. But people don't do that because they're not playing for the gameplay, they're playing for the gamble.

I loved visual fox pro as a kid (~10). I made little UIs to open my favorite sites and files.

No, you're missing the point; if I'm on Linux, not running KLAC, it doesn't affect whether other people are cheating.

Any activity you enjoy is enjoyed because it produces a dopamine release (for someone who enjoys it).

People who enjoy reading get the same dopamine reaction from that as people who enjoy video games. Or slot machines.

The difference with slot machines is that the purpose of them is solely to tie that dopamine release to giving away money predicated on deception (specifically, both by not disclosing actual odds, and by lying about them).

A slot game that requires no money to play isn't a problem, because it's not tricking old people into giving away their pensions.

This can literally be said of any entertainment.

Ultimately, everyone spends their time on what they enjoy; there's no award when you die for doing more x than y while you were alive.

I enjoy playing games, gardening, and riding motorcycles. My cousin enjoys socializing at bars, playing games, and doing woodwork.

Is one of our hobby sets more legitimate than the other's?

Your anti cheat doesn't stop others' cheating, so whether they had KLAC running is irrelevant to whether they encountered cheaters.

Objectively, IP exists and is acted upon, so IP is real, obviously, but IMO it is bad, and should not exist.

People tend to forget that IP was not originally about digital distribution at all (copyright), it was about giving inventors exclusivity periods to profit without competition (patents).

It was a misguided attempt to stop sometimes literal theft of designs from rival inventors, by tying the design to the person instead of whoever possessed the schematic.

It's also a regime that in its modern incarnation protects businesses, not artists.

But if few people know that 99.9999 == 4m19s, then how is anyone losing out on changes? If you hadn't told me and I didn't have a need to calculate it with certainty, I'd have believed you if you'd said it was an hour a month.

I think the point is that the metric being meaningless right now to most people makes it easier to shift the reliability-Overton-window. 99.9999 vs 98.0 seems not to bad to a layman (I.e. executives), but 4m19s to 12 hours seems pretty intuitively bad. Sure, we may lose some shift in the immediate future, but it's easier for that to continue happening with just percentages, is the point.

It's not like we have to stop showing percentages as well, but time is a much more accessible expression. Right now the lay-ness of company leadership has already allowed the shift to happen pretty markedly.

I think the point is more, "you can't legislate holding those values".

Laws are informed by the interests (which may include morals) of the law-makers, and many people do base their morals in part on what laws exist, but most people believe that at least some laws are immoral, and some immoralities are legal.

Many law-makers want people to view illegalities as immoralities, but that's not how most humans operate.

It does when their models have escaped and performed attacks.

Other people 'sharpening their skills' by committing random assaults is not an excuse to also randomly assault people, so your skills don't fall behind theirs...

...and one assaulter stopping their assaults is ultimately fewer people being assaulted, lowering the overall danger of being assaulted.

If people actually knew how much of a wild west this stuff is, a lot more would be cautious with their personal info.

If the plaintiffs are smart, they'll use Sony themselves calling digital licenses "owned" items, to say that Sony understood that licenses should be treated as other owned objects -which would naturally entail the non-revocability of a purchase outside exigent circumstances like malfeasance- but are now trying to change that post-hoc, and argue the court should not let them.

My eyes glazed over when I saw "recursively", and I had to re-read the last couple paragraphs again to grok it, and it's very cool.

No, never worked for Big Blue. ;)

You've never been on a bus where the driver had to stop to go use the restroom? There is no prohibition against that.

I think you're putting words in my mouth.

I believe that 2 programs that execute the same are of equal value, no matter the intentions of the person writing the code (or lack thereof). If you read the article, you'd probably know what I was referring to:

> But at least we know that each line, as bad as it can be, was added by a human for a reason.

That's what immediately preceded the bit I quoted, and the entire point of my critique is that this author is treating human intention in coding as intrinsically valuable.

And rather than snark, I'd love if you actually explained why me calling LLMs "mathematical approximations" of their training data is inaccurate? They're literally weighted vector graphs of their training data.

You think handcrafted furniture is more readily accessible to the average person now than say 30 years ago? When people are struggling to buy gas, nevermind homes?

And I asked Claude (Fable 5), and they said you're wrong. I'd paste it here, but it literally dumped a 10 paragraph rant about "Baumol's Cost Disease".

Worse, I'm someone who's been reviewing code for a long time. And it's not much different now than it was before.

> You cannot assume anything about generated code. Maybe it was simply hallucinated and, by chance, it compiled.

This is, ironically, similar to my mom's anti-mental-healthcare argument that the system producing a good outcome is not evidence that the process is correct.

It's everyone's choice what stances they take, and if being utterly opposed to any kind of AI interaction is their's, that's their choice, but just own that choice without resorting to absurdity to attempt to lend it a false sense of credibility.

LLMs don't produce working code through mere hallucinatory chance, they do it by mathematical approximation, which is no more or less valid than pasting together programs from stack overflow answers.

Idgaf if the person who coded a program had intention when writing a line of code I never see because it's a compiled binary blob, I care that the program works. And frankly, pretending otherwise is pretentious BS.

This is like asking your drug dealer if being high will help you forget your problems.