bratbag

Communities used to naturally form in third spaces, when people were bored.

We have an unhealthy deficit of both third spaces and boredom.

In this case?

Because I want there to still be fish to eat in 20 years and enforced public view will make illegal overfishing harder.

And yet, success is higher when others support and reinforce.

So don't use statistics as an excuse to be a dick.

I'm ok with a degree of unreliability when experimenting with new ideas.

That's a tradeoff I already make when using relativly new third party libraries/services to accelerate experimentation.

Most engineers have probably been bitten in the ass by versioned dependencies conflicting with each other.

I hope this is satire.

Do you, or are you just failing to understand their humour?

Their interest is to convince themselves that it won't be needed in their lifetime, and to hell with anyone else after they are dead.

Most things in life involve risk and most safety regulation doesn't seek perfect safety, just safe enough that its realistic to produce something that most people can afford with tolerable risks.

Discussion about that line is to be expected, if there is disagreement over it being crossed.

Maybe not as many people feel this as you think.

Should and do, are two different things.

They consistently happen at greater frequency with proximity.

Three years of wfh with terrible results before we started returning to the office one day a week, has shown me that proximity is a deal breaker for anyone who wants to progress into roles that require mentorship of others.

Or are you just more likely to notice the overlap?

That's more performative arguing then constructive arguing, no?

Within the context of applying an argument constructively, I think it's a good list.

If every discussion has to have people singing his praise? Then yes, every discussion should also have that being questioned.

There is a growing body of evidence that high levels of engagement with social media is linked with an increase in risks for multiple types of psychological ailments.

Singling out Facebook is a tad unfair and causality still needs proving, but I don't think it can be called either hyperbolic or unsupported.

Its infinite from the perspective of our side of the curve.

It's another application of advanced technology appearing to be magic, but imagine transitioning into it in a matter of hours, then with that advanced tech transitioning further into damn-near godhood within minutes.

Then imagine what happens in the second after that.

It may be operating within the boundaries of physics, but they would be physical rules well beyond our understanding and may even be infinite by our own limited definition of physics.

That's the curve.

Does it make them less happy, or just appear to be less happy when compared to people who keep the same irritations inside?

So stepping back from the unreliable narrator of a person living through this with ptsd:

-person is suffering mental health issues due to strain of job.

-persons performance drops rapidly without warning as a result.

-boss takes workload off them without putting them on a pip process, to give them time to work through their issues.

-person quits right after stocks vest which upsets boss who put extra effort into helping them

-person gives interview to justify their behaviour

If you consider protecting women's rights and opposing homophobia/transphobia as fascism, then yeah sure.

Sitting here in europe looking in, its fairly obvious that 'Both sides' is just an excuse to explain away persecuting people as a political choice.

Not really comparable, is it?

This is more akin to not liking sharp rocks, but choosing to throw yourself off a cliff.

It's not like the sharp rocks at the bottom of that cliff are waiting for you as you live your life frolicking across gentle meadows. You have to choose to go and climb that cliff and throw yourself off the top of it.

No-one is forcing you to use their service.

Being linguistically poor reduces your options for sourcing solutions to your problems, or understanding how to stop them being problems in the first place.

There may be methods of accessing clean water that are totally outside their traditional or contextual experience, which they have no hope of accessing or evaluating due to linguistic limitations.

Even the idea that there may be options outside of the traditional and immediate, may be something they had not thought of due to linguistic limitations.

Boredom is a common motivation for action.

Action is required to overcome depression, even if its just action to seek help.

Easy access to anything that can alleviate bordom (including TV) is going to increase the chances that someone is stuck in depression.

3 is not required. Multiple steps with no negatives is sufficient.

Customers being oblivious to dark patterns in charging, is why regulation is needed.

Can you put that in precise terms, rather than a silly analogy designed to play on peoples emotions?

What exactly and precisely, with specifics, is in OpenAI's ideas of humanities best interests that you think are a net negative for our species?

Yes you are.

The question you are asking is defined by the context of what you are replying to.

Selectively choosing to only reply to one part of that, in an effort to change the context, in fact changes nothing.

In this case 'deserves' was used in the context of someone deserving freedom from state interference.

No, you are asking why people should be allowed to seek happiness without a state or corporate entity using that as a method of control.

Don't run your healthcare as a for-profit system.

My personal experience of this is that you can have direct, hard evidence of someone commiting fraud, and they will still jump on social media screaming that they are being persecuted.

"Trust me bro" is not evidence.