avazhi

You mean besides the fact that all they do is complain without actually leading at anything?

In many ways the rest of the world would be better off if Europe was disconnected from the internet.

Pretty sure that’s intentional

Ten people have replied to your question (which is the same question I have) and not one of them have answered it so I figured I’d be number 11.

Like, is this thread full of astroturfing bots? What am I reading

Thanks, you didn’t answer his question at all.

Yeah I’m never leaving Sequoia.

> Naive and outright dangerous advice,

Well maybe the brain damaged mozilla devs shouldn't force visual diarrhea down everybody else's throat and then users wouldn't block updates. If only Mozilla's devs could have learned from how people deal with Microsoft and Apple doing similarly asinine redesigns.

This is the most diabolical fuckass looking thing I've ever seen. Imagine waking up to this shit autoinstalling itself with no straightforwardly obvious way to disable it.

Hey Mozilla - I have transparency and color tinting disabled in Windows. What the fuck are you doing? Literally everybody who signed off on this UI redesign should resign and leave software development, it ain't for you. And the rest of your employees should get tested for lead poisoning, something isn't right around there.

about:config

search nova and disable this shit. Fire these people into the sun.

If you need people to invent problems to solve, you may not be working in a useful area.

Time to get training as a plumber or electrician, I’d say.

What about it? That’s not a mathematical issue.

That’s like saying ‘what about the fact that a man has to walk up to his ex wife to shoot her in the head’ as an attempted criticism of walking.

My point was that saying 'California bans child marriage' is less accurate than 'California bans minors from being able to wed', since the latter (arguably) encompasses a larger group of people. I don't think most people consider a 16 or 17 year old a child in the way a 5 or 8 year old is a child. Put another way, an 8 year old girl being forcibly married to, say, a 30 year old man (as happens in certain places in the world) is, I would put to you, much more offensive and viscerally disgusting than a 17 year old girl being married. Neither should be lawful, but child marriage conjures up images of actual children, surely.

Not it wouldn't what?

EDIT: Can't reply: 'You're posting too fast'

Goes without saying nobody should be married before they're 18 (or probably 25, for that matter, but that's another story), but it seems performative and disingenuous to call this 'child marriage'. A child is a person who hasn't yet reached puberty - clearly that isn't applicable to, say, a 17 year old.

It would be more accurate (but of course garner less headlines) to say California has made it unlawful for a minor to get married.

Also see the technical definition of child here: https://archive.org/details/mosbysdictionary09edunse/page/34...

This pits the developmental/medical definition against legal status. Nevertheless, under the technical definition a child is necessarily a minor but not every minor is a child.

Thus, saying that California banned minors from being married would cover both cases accurately and be less clickbait-worthy, while saying 'California bans child marriage' is not fully accurate because it doesn't convey the full extent of the ban (viz., minors).

As a side note in the legal profession when discussing wills and estates the term 'minor children' is used for a reason.

Mathematicians surely have copped the biggest L of the AI era - and their transparently self-serving attempts to gatekeep their ivory towery when we now have something that can do it better and faster is, frankly, pathetic.

Time to get some real jobs, guys. When you're asking other entities to slow down with the discoveries so 'real people' can have their fun, you might not actually be participating in a useful profession.

This same day will come for other professions like pilots, lawyers, doctors, and teachers, but it's funny that the lowest hanging fruit really was what we'd all most expect lol.

Google attempting to put itself into the frontier conversation simply by saying so is actual lol-inducing. Gemini has been laughably bad for like 9 months now.

This is one of those things we just can’t figure out now, huh lol.

Like alien tech. Crazy how far our ingenuity has fallen in many ways since the 50s-60s.

This explains a lot actually.

First two days of this thing was like working with Einstein, then about 24-36 hours ago I started getting frustrated at bullshit that hadn't been a problem before. It was so egregious that I checked to make sure I was still on Opus 5.5 Max.

Nerfbench isn't helpful if it's 3 days old.

Are you a bot?

I said what Israel is doing is not genocide as that word is defined as a matter of law. Where the fuck did I say that what was happening in gaza is a good thing or 'okay'?

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

    Killing members of the group;
    Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
    Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
    Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
    Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

-https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition

I think my conversation with you has run its course. I hope you learned something today. Do better next time.

Look up the word in the dictionary big guy. Also read actual case law on the subject before commenting on HN about it.

You seem to be confused about what genocide means, and your nonchalant careless use of it denigrates those who were actually victims of it, like those in Rwanda or Burma, where governments expressly systemically sought to murder and eradicate all members of particular ethnic groups. What Hamas clearly aspired to was genocide in the formal definition (ie, their stated end goal was and is the destruction of Israel and murder of all Jews). To my knowledge Israel has never expressed any desire to eradicate the Palestinians in whole or in part on the basis that they are Palestinian, nor can such a desire be imputed. Just because you don’t like what’s happening in Gaza doesn’t make it genocide, and you (and others) would be taken slightly more seriously if you saved that term for appropriately serious situations (with the requisite mens rea), which Gaza is not.

> neutral genocide experts.

Peak comedy, thanks for the laugh.

Sorry, can you point me to the part where an Israeli military or political leader has expressed the view that all or some Palestinians should be murdered because they are Palestinians?

I missed that part when I looked, and for that I apologise.

You (and the contributors to that particular article) seem to not know the difference between war crimes (which Israel has probably committed) and genocide, which is much more onerous to prove. What you should be doing is looking at how genocide is defined generally and at how genocide cases have been prosecuted historically. Only by changing the goalposts of how genocide is defined can you attempt to construe what’s happening in gaza as genocide, which is what that article (which presupposes that what is happening in gaza is genocide by its title, obliterating any notion of objectivity) does throughout.

Put simply, if you use any legally accepted definition of genocide (as a matter of the historical record) then what is happening in gaza doesn’t even come close. And of course the legally accepted definition is ultimately all that matters. That’s very different from whether laymen think it’s genocide because what’s happening hurts their feelings.

4% isn’t much in the grand scheme of things and again, yes you have to be able to prove the intent. Pretty basic legal principle. It could be 85% and that wouldn’t by itself prove genocide.

Do you guys even bother being minimally informed before commenting? Like, Wikipedia is right there…

That’s how the statute of limitations works.

Still massively sucks though. Not quite as bad as the guy who bought two pizzas for 10,000 bitcoin but still a situation that would be impossible to ever get over.

Did I really need the /s tag?

No it’s not. There are several European efforts to develop AI, they just aren’t good at it and it isn’t anywhere near frontier level. The analogy is that the Europeans are trying to make their own cigarettes but can’t do it as well as the cigarette makers they are criticising and fining constantly.

Just ban it and make your own social networks then? Surely it’s easy and straightforward to do.

If the social networks provide no value then ban them. And if they do but they are so harmful then create your own.

A tri polar world technologically would be great.

That’s my point. The Europeans heavily rely on America for all sorts of shit, but all the Europeans do is whine and complain about literally everything. I’m no trump or Facebook/zuckerberg fan, nor do I even live in America.

But it’s actually laughable how much the Europeans complain about the Americans/American big tech while at the same time inventing no alternatives themselves and in fact relying on America for a whole host of shit, notably their defence. AI is another great example where the Europeans won’t cease complaining but don’t have and apparently won’t have a single frontier model of their own. Mistral is the best they’ve got lol.

Europeans love to berate and criticise others for building something but won’t build it themselves (and they still use what’s being built in the end).

Ban those big bad evil American companies or pipe down.