aussieshibe

I turned off presence in early 2020 and I've never looked back. Far fewer people ping me about things I don't care about now.

I think expecting to get a reply instantly is a big part of why people bother you on Slack. Having to wait for a reply seems to cut out much of the noise.

I found it difficult to get into Inscryption. I loved Slay the Spire (450 hours played and counting), especially Spire With Friends.

Inscryption never grabbed me. Maybe I need to give it another go.

I'd be interested to find out.

Despite your scepticism, there are a few things that gave this one away.

Repeating the subject noun rather than changing to "it" after the first use is the biggest one in this example. It sounds very unnatural to keep saying "ChatGPT", especially three sentences in a row, but ChatGPT seems to do it quite often.

Having said that, I'm not confident I could do much better than 50/50 when not primed with the knowledge that people are likely to post generated content right now, plus the context of the conversation.

What? I'm not making any comparison I think?

The person I replied to said (paraphrasing) "Why aren't cars going away? If they aren't, why can't you make the same arguments about coal power plants".

I'm saying:

- Cars aren't going away because they are much better than any available alternative for a large number of people from a short term perspective

- The same can't be said of coal power because electricity is electricity is electricity, there is no immediate difference, so the longer term differences have a greater impact on decision making

> Didn't realise these were valid arguments in the face of the Climate Catastrophe!

They're not even arguments.

I'm not saying that people should keep driving.

I'm answering the question "why aren't cars going away".

Unless you think that people just aren't aware that public transport / riding / walking is more environmentally friendly than driving, the only conclusion I can come up with is that people care more about the factors I mentioned than environmental impact (or at least, that time-discounting of delayed negative externalities is significant).

> It's by far the most convenient and quickest to burn coal.

For who? I'm talking about the factors that influence consumer choice, not producers.

Why won't fusion still be a worthwhile goal even if we do have abundant solar/wind?

Abundant and cheap are relative terms. Solar and wind could be abundant in a "powers everything we have now and for the foreseeable future of population growth" sense, but maybe not in a "gigantic power-hungry megaprojects which aren't remotely possible today" sense?

> Why?

Comfort, convenience, speed, separation from other people, etc, etc. Changing the balance there requires significant investment in alternatives which doesn't seem to be forthcoming (at least in my country).

We can't apply the same arguments to power plants because we don't have to go to / see / interact with the power plant in order to use electricity. It just appears at the wall socket like magic. Where it comes from is functionally irrelevant to the consumer.

It's a monologue from The Office which uses similarly extremely short sentence structure as seen in the GGP comment.

It's also possible GP is referencing GGPs arguably paranoid position on phones, relating it to similar paranoias held by Dwight (the character who delivers the monologue).

https://youtu.be/PlIzKaGBeHk

It depends how you do your laundry I guess.

I have a washer-dryer combo (and enough solar power to not worry too much about the environmental impact of using it). My wash involves chucking everything in the machine at the end of the week, waiting six hours, carrying the now completely dry clothes to the bedroom.

While I'm on the fence, and don't disagree with the point, this is an awful example to use.

The whole comment is written in a very noticeable Chat GPT "voice", making it very easy to tell it was generated by Chat GPT.

It's also not a particularly fun comment.

Maybe in your browser you have that option. Not for me.

It doesn't need to be, but it certainly undercuts the message a bit if it's not.

Maybe it's just me, but needing to press "back" twenty or so times to get back to HN after viewing some of this presentation really made me question the author's authority when it comes to "how the web should work".

For "microscopy". Sure, sure. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more.

It seems to me that someone could just as reasonably (that is to say, not at all reasonably) argue:

> I don't like hunting for information when I'm shopping online, and would rather get a personal recommendation from a staff member. If you need to fill your website with loads of text, you probably need to do something about your live support staff.

Our individual personal preferences prove next to nothing about what a business "should" do.

Maybe it's true that these popups drive more people away than they convert on average (although I doubt it), but to claim that with any credibility you need to give some evidence.

On the topic of Roblox, it sounds pretty awful generally. Microtransactions don't (IMHO) have any place in a game for young kids.

In a previous job I dealt with a police request for information after a pre-teenager child sent an email to their school principal saying there was a bomb in the school that would explode and kill everyome unless they were given some number of Robux so they could buy a hat or something for their character.

How do they differentiate prepaid and postpaid phone numbers?

Is there some way they can check with the provider for a given number? Seems less than ideal from a privacy perspective.

It's surprising to me to hear that LoL actually does something about chat moderation.

I play DotA, which seemingly does nothing (at at least, very little). I eventually decided to just disable text and voice chat entirely rather than put up with salt in every other game. Toxicity is contagious.

> What was the "inhumane" manner?

You should probably ask this of the original commenter.

I've not made any claims one way or the other about whether anything inhumane happened.

> the ones against the Elon take over cheered when people lost their jobs over a vaccination

Do you have a source for this? What makes you think it's the same people?

GP didn't say "layoffs are inhumane", but that the manner in which people have been fired is inhumane.

"Wash off any excess lions" without even mentioning to check for alkali metals first.

You're going to kill some poor soul trying to clean all the baked-in francium and lions off their crockery.

Shame on you.

I don't know about the health side, but growing up on South Australian rain and tap water, I think the Sydney tap water tastes absolutely foul by comparison.

I'm not suggesting giving app developers greater control, but users. I agree that letting app developers demand whatever permissions they want will lead to stopwatch apps which always require precise location.

If I want the option to shut off Apple's controls and sideload a bunch of malware, that doesn't have to affect users who don't want to do that (assuming this option is gated behind some sufficiently stern warnings about the consequences). That Apple doesn't allow that has far less to do with protecting users than it does protecting their bottom line.

Having said that, Apple making these kinds of decisions for business reasons is (IMHO) a perfectly valid and logical way to operate. I'd just prefer we didn't pretend they're making this decision because allowing users to take more control over their devices is necessarily dangerous. That excuse has more holes than a slice of this fine Gorgombert.

Did you mean to reply to someone else perhaps?

The comment you replied to was a one line joke about being bad at regex. I didn't directly or implicitly make any claim about the quality of the output of the chatbot. It's unclear to me how my comment could be reasonably interpreted as "parading it around".

On a tangent:

> Fooled by a language model

I suspect a reasonable person would understand this to be insulting on some level, so I assume you must have seen some other meaning/value in including it such that the "insultingness" is outweighed by the point you're making. I'm not seeing that point though, could you clarify?

If it only required one round of correction, it's already better at regex than I am.

Sure, and I suspect in the case of WFH that is what some of those people really meant.

I'm not sure I'd agree on the reasonableness point.

It's definitely a reasonable preference to have (although this is true of all preferences). To me, the reasonableness ends at trying to make anyone else satisfy that preference.

You're good, I understood what you meant. Just trying to spread the joy that is the Aussie meat pie!

So make it difficult to do. Add a bunch of warnings.

This option lets hackers into yr phone to steal yr nudes click OK to continue. Are you SURE? Check this box if you're sure. Check this box if you're just clicking every box to get through this to cancel, or wait thirty minutes to continue. Type "I GET IT MR APPLE BRING ON THE VIRII" and tap continue to continue. Get any Gold badge on HackerRank to continue. Put your phone in the microwave on HIGH for 30 minutes to continue.

...

...

Good. If you are reading this, it means you did not microwave your phone. You have passed the test. A fully clothed Apple representative is waiting for you in your car. Do not look directly into his eyes. Follow his directions to travel to our Appcave. After performing a gravity search for security reasons, he will grant you control over your device.

Something like that.

Johnny Tech-No might be able to navigate the checkboxes, he might even get through the trick one where you have to wait 30 minutes. There's no way he's getting Gold on HackerRank without having the know how to safely use a rooted phone. Surely.

Is that a challenge?

I'm sure I have a couple of vice grips around here somewhere. I wonder how far an iPhone will fold before Apple Pay stops working. Surely some YouTuber has tested this already...