dpark

This sounds like the kind of well-intentioned thinking that results in products that are no safer practically but are far more unpleasant to interact with. This is like the pop up every time I start my car that reminds me I should not play with the screen while I’m driving.

> If they found a link, they found a link

You could have skipped the wall of text. They didn’t find a link. They found a random correlation.

The scientists here essentially engaged in P-hacking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging

Munroe didn’t misunderstand the independence of the experiments at all. He understands that misleading spurious results can arise from repeated experiments.

> And it needs further research. Not less, not more.

No it doesn’t. At least not anymore than the other colors. A positive result is no more deserving of further investigation than a negative result. What you are describing is bad science.

It’s got electrolytes.

> I like motion, I wouldn't have set this myself!

You sure about that? “Turn on Reduce Motion” was a common bit of advice for people who were looking for ways to make Liquid Glass livable.

This seems deeply delusional at this point.

It’s obvious from context that his team owns some sort of WYSIWYG editor.

How was any of that incomprehensible? They gave a list of some actual things they shipped. The hand wavy dismissal where you pretend they didn’t say anything just exposes your bias. You don’t want to hear a success story so you don’t.

> They are kinda famous for systemic cheating at this point.

Is that really a Norway thing or a professional sports thing? Think of all the disqualifications in the Tour de France spanning many nations.

It’s not incompatible with open source. It’s incompatible with free software. If Apple or Google or Microsoft or the government needs to “bless” your build, then you have no freedom to actually use your build.

Indeed. Lending without expecting any repayment would not be lending. It would be giving. This could be interpreted as a call to generosity. Plain reading seems to rule out interest though. (The more nuanced reading seems to rule out lending at all.)

There are plenty of other examples of modern Christians picking and choosing though. Starting with ignoring the above call to charity (if we read it that way). There are many calls to give freely, yet most modern Christian’s are content with pretty minor giving overall. Or we could talk about how “turn the other cheek” aligns with the distinct non-pacifism that permeates modern Christianity. Or we could talk about taking oaths, divorce, head coverings by women in church, embrace of community property. Etc.

Christian scholars regularly debate how to interpret portions of the Bible. I’m not sure what they are doing if it’s clear and easy to adhere to.

Two of these snarky, hand-wavey responses in a row is sufficient to establish that you have nothing valuable to add here. Take care

> In principle I could replace a large language model with a map from all possible input strings to output token or output token distribution without any weights.

What is an output token distribution except a set of weights?

I don’t know what this means. You’re hand waving “based on consumption”. There is no magic deduction that turns an income tax into a consumption tax.

Also you seem to have reversed your stance and are basing deductions on consumption. So the exact opposite of a consumption-based tax.

> Not really especially for W2 employees as they have very few deductions

Right. Individuals are taxed on income and not consumption. Taxes don’t go down if they save instead of spend (in fact they go up as they are taxed on the interest earned). There’s nothing about this that’s consumption based so a replacement system that looks basically the same but with more deductions is also not a consumption tax.

Businesses are weird already and are taxed on profit rather than income. Anything that reduces profit on paper reduces tax, whether it’s actually consumption or not (e.g. stock buy backs).

And what about this?

Luke 6:34–35 - And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.

I hear a lot of anti gay preaching but no preaching against charging interest. Cafeteria Christianity indeed.

It is also super weird to hear Christians say that the Old Testament is superseded but then keep quoting it when it’s convenient.

You’ve gotta squint each hard to call an income tax with deductions a consumption tax. That’s what we have in the US right now.

That article spends most of its time explaining why a progressive consumption tax is obviously the right choice, then basically decries liberals as too dumb to understand it and conservatives as too evil to want it, but spends zero words to explain how a progressive consumption tax might possibly be implemented.

This is not an expert consensus. It’s one random npr story.

Switching entirely to consumption tax is a billionaires dream. Dropping corporate income tax is a CFO’s dream. (Whoever wrote the line about how reinvested money shouldn’t be taxed is also an idiot. Taxes are on profits. Money reinvested in the business becomes an expense and so is not taxed. What is discouraged through business taxation is sitting on large corporate coffers.)

I’m curious what you mean by this. Leviticus is specifically included in the Christian Bible.

> Except it's just an excuse to make everyone surrender their phone numbers

“Why do you need this account you’ve abandoned for a year” is a different question than “why does Google need your phone number”. I have no doubt Google loves to collect phone numbers for several reasons, none of them altruistic.

> contrary to your insinuation … I de-Googled a long time ago

You’re grasping at stuff to be mad about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you

> the most condescending way possible

Every single reply you’ve made in this thread has been condescending and sarcastic. You’re projecting your self righteousness onto others.

> If you read…

Nah. I will decline to (re)read several hundred pages to try to find the answer you cannot provide.

You didn’t even answer my straightforward question about what you meant with your seeming homosexuality-pedophilia link.

> If you chose to fornicate you’re sinning.

Then can I assume you support gay marriage?

My point here is that all Christians are “cafeteria Christians”. They all pick and choose the pieces they agree with and want to follow. They discard the inconvenient stuff as no longer relevant and claim the things that they believe are supported by the scripture.

So much of Christian belief is not in the bible no matter what particular sect you are a part of. I remember when those “Left Behind” book’s came out and I found out many of my friends believed in a physical rapture where those “saved” would literally disappear from the Earth. I had no idea this was even a thing because it’s not something my church taught and it’s not in the bible.

Most (all?) other groups have their own rules and beliefs that are not in the bible. I’m not sure it’s possible to be fully faithful to the Bible because it’s not entirely self consistent. Also the books of the bible themselves were chosen from many candidate texts. It’s not as if Jesus left a bibliography.

> Given the widespread practice of man-boy … I have an incredibly hard time believing this piece of scripture is at all misinterpreted.

I’m struggling with this statement. Are you saying that Leviticus is actually only anti-pedophile and not anti-gay (and so all these conservative Christian preachers are willfully misrepresenting it), or are you continuing the long tradition of falsely linking homosexuality with pedophilia? Is there some other interpretation I’m missing?

> Regarding BBQ, I assume that’s a presence to kosher law and subsequently an attempt at calling hypocrite on the congregation. In that regard we have quite a few pieces of scripture, e.g. in Mark, effectively redefining and negating much of kosher law thereby making that issue moot.

I mean, pork is only one of a million things forbidden in Leviticus that modern Christians ignore. Why is charging interest on loans okay now? Where’s the part where Mark says that’s cool? What about period sex? Seems that rule is gone, too. Where is the passage that says “Pretty much everything in Leviticus is irrelevant except the gay thing”?

This claim hinges on the idea that homosexuality is a thing you do and not a part of who you are. You can love someone while hating a thing they do. You cannot love someone while hating who they are.

The conservative Christian notion that homosexuality is a choice to is honestly super weird to me because I certainly never chose heterosexuality. It’s one of those things that only makes sense while you’re in it and it’s constantly being beat into you, and with some distance you see that it’s ridiculous.

> Even those you are bigoted towards

I agree this is a better reading. Of course this makes it even more apt guidance for the Southern Baptists (and others) who preach bigotry.

You missed the point.

> If you haven't used your $whatever in a year, why do you want to use it now? Replace $whatever with whatever you want and you'll see how absurd this question is.

This is a silly statement specifically because the choice of “$whatever” determines whether it’s “absurd”. It’s definitely not absurd to assume that a year old sandwich is trash, while it is absurd to assert that an unaccessed safe deposit box is trash.

But of course you also pay the bank for your safe deposit box. If you stop paying then they absolutely will discard the contents (or send them off to the state, depending on laws). No one stores abandoned junk for free. If you want you pay Google for your account I bet they’ll keep it even if you never log in.

I would personally not want my account recovery tied to an account I rarely use. That seems full of unnecessary risk. What if you forget that Gmail password? What if it’s compromised and you don’t even notice for almost a year? What if Google decides to change their retention for unused accounts to just 6 months?

That’s a very narrow reading. The parable was in response to the question “who’s my neighbor” in the “love thy neighbor” statement and Jesus basically said “even those you hate”(i.e. the Samaritans).

> I’ve never heard of any such group in my entire independent Southern Baptist life.

I grew up in the South and distinctly remember the Southern Baptist preachings against interracial marriage based on selective (mis)readings of the Bible, against homosexuality based on selective readings of the Old Testament (pick and choose indeed; hate gays while eating your BBQ pork). I remember the constant calls for boycott of Disney parks because of “gay days”.

I don’t know what it’s like I’m a Southern Baptist church now, but I seriously doubt it’s changed much.

If you leave your ham sandwich in the office fridge for a single week, anyone is justified in throwing it away.

The trouble is you think that you are in possession of a ham sandwich that Google is taking away when in reality you’ve left your ham sandwich in Google’s fridge and they are sick of storing the obviously-abandoned sandwich for you.

See also: https://xkcd.com/1150/