ta8645

Well, i'm in favor of pursuing the ideal, even though it will never be perfect in practice.

There's also a reason we don't create zoning laws based on political belief, forcing everyone to agree with us if they want to be our neighbor.

Yes, I feel the same way. I'm in favor of self-controlled filters that let each of us decide what we want to consume, and when. Don't think that means you need to go into the echo-chamber permanently.

You're presenting a false dichotomy. Of course, there will be mistakes. And of course there needs to be moderation. But I support the moderation similar to HN, it's about politeness and respect. As long as you're respectful, you can say your piece.

Also, X does provide community based fact checking too, which works best when there are representatives from all sides participating.

I'm still hoping that X wins. I'm hoping that we learn how to coexist with a diversity of viewpoints. It seems counterproductive to partition everyone up into their own little gardens, without any viable opposition to the dominant views.

We're not discussing the case generally. We're asking if the assertion that he THREATENED anyone, holds water. So far, nobody has been able to provide any evidence, that he has.

Whatever you think about the case, it should be decided with factual statements, not emotional manipulative accusations that bend the truth.

Did he actually call for people to make threats or use violence? Did he even imply it?

Do you apply the same standard to public figures who call Trump a fascist or a Nazi? Are they responsible for the person who shot him?

With all that typing, you could have answered the actual question. As far as I know, there were no threats made by Alex Jones. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know.

Okay. But I think that undermines the argument the OP was making significantly.

Honest question: what threats did Jones make against them? I understood that he claimed it was a hoax/conspiracy, not that he had made any threats. Not even sure how he could make threats against people he didn't believe were real.

It seems to be used by Youtube for comment censoring / shadow-banning.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. You don't provide any evidence about their inability to disseminate the information, you just assert it as fact because you seem to support government overreach.

Sorry, yours is the poor take. If the government has the right to seize the bank accounts of Canadians, without due process, then the government also has the power to release any information they want.

Just because they invent reasons to keep it secret, doesn't mean that's what's right, or most healthy for an honest and functioning democracy.

> It’s not at all clear that that is even plausible.

Given this latest news about Tik Tok, i'd say it's more than likely, since this is hardly the biggest threat from China, especially if they've compromised members of the government.

You would think it would be an all out 5-alarm fire, and dealt with in the most expedient (and hopefully transparent) way possible. So that the public know they can trust all their government representatives.

> Also, the CSIS appears to be making very unequivocal statements in support of the policy approach.

The government has investigated itself, and found itself innocent, and following a divine path.

This seems like political theatre. Recently, Trudeau claimed that he has direct evidence against members of the opposition party engaged in "foreign interference" with China[1] There are also allegations by others that members of his own party have also been implicated. And yet he refuses to release the names, or elaborate on any of these allegations for the public.

Essentially, he's using China to distract from his own policy failings at home.

[1] https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-says-he-has-list-of-...

I'd have to also buy a phone, and i'm not doing that for a single service. It's a ridiculous requirement, that people are far too willing to accept.

Still can't use their services. They still require a phone number for some reason. What about those of us who don't have one?

Would be great if more websites were this quick: https://www.mcmaster.com

Great. Now, do the rest of me sitting in the seat. If you don't need my real eyes, you don't need any of the real me. We can discuss, whatever it is, in email.

My tinfoil hat says it's about control. Forcing people to return for another blessing from the central authority, more often. The same reason church is once a week, and not once a year.

Everyone seems to acknowledge this is a problem, but refuse to believe it actually affects anything when it comes time to "trust the science". Yes, science is corrupted, but all the results can be trusted, and the correct answer is always reached in the end. So, is it really a problem? Or not?

> To me this sounds like a totally different type of "knowledge" than stringing words together based on a training set.

We're desperate to keep seeing ourselves as unique with key distinguishing features that are unreproducible in silicon, but from my long experience with computer chess, every step along the way, people were explaining patiently how computers could never reproduce the next quality that set humans apart. And it was always just wishful thinking, because computers eventually stopped looking silly, stopped looking like they were playing by rote, and started to produce "beautiful" chess games.

And it will happen again, after the next leap in AI, people will again latch on to whatever it is that AI systems still lack, and use it to explain how they'll "always" be lacking... only to eventually be disappointed again that silicon can in fact reach that height too.

Humans aren't magic. Whatever we can do, silicon can do too. It's just a matter of time.

> but it will never plug that gap

They don't have to be perfect, they just have to be better than humans. And that seems very likely to be achievable eventually.

Your idea is really a brilliant insight. Revealing.

It's not just about efficiency, it's also about quality of life. There is a reason that a cop has permission to use his judgement when deciding to write a ticket or not. Because life is better when we don't live under the oppression of draconian rule keepers all the time. Rules are meant to protect people, and as such are often specified in terms of the lowest common denominator, with the understanding that the system doesn't enforce them when they can be reasonably ignored, using good judgement.

Life will be shittier for everyone if an army of self-empowered rule-loving busybodies get to expand their current powers beyond the realm of the HOA.

You should be embarrassed to be such a petty authoritarian cheerleader just because that power is being abused against someone you dislike and disagree with.

Did you find it superior to Valgrind in some way?

One could argue this is exactly the prescription that the Gnome project embraced. Remove, simplify, excise. To mixed reviews.

Many people are in fact dumb, and will never acquire the prerequisites. We're not all blank slates with equal potential.