They can indeed, but that doesn't change the fact that YouTube is obliged to follow the laws of the jurisdictions where it operates, and citizens have the right to demand that these laws are upheld.
566 karma · joined January 16, 2020
I know that I am conscious and I cannot doubt it, but at the same time I cannot prove it to you. Furthermore, I strongly suspect and assume that other human beings are conscious, but I cannot verify this scientifically (i.e. measure it somehow).
This means that consciousness is a phenomenon that cannot be doubted (in the first person) but possibly eludes the scientific method. This really grates people who have a strong emotional attachment to the dogma that science must be able to account for all of reality.
People confuse the metaphysical commitment of materialism with scientific fact, and thus conclude that consciousness must be an emergent phenomenon of neural complexity, and that it is silly to believe that anything else could be conscious. This feels like an hyper-rational, scientific stance, but really it is not. Science works perfectly fine within other metaphysical commitments such as idealism, panpsychism, etc.
This is not to say that materialism is not correct, I do not know if it is or not. My point is that many contemporary "scientific types" tend to believe that their certainty about materialism being the correct framework is grounded on science, when it is not. It is often an unexamined and quasi-religious belief.
I notice that the big unspoken resistance to metaphysics these days is the fear that it is somehow a trick to smuggle God back into our understanding of reality. This fear can become excessive, and carry the unsavory and perhaps ironic side-effect of turning physicalism into a God that cannot be questioned.
The world is not only the anglo world. Other cultures have their own literary giants and you can bet that they value them more than they value Shakespeare.
When I have to force myself to enjoy something, I tend to wonder if the thing is really worth enjoying or if I am instead just trying to acquire a taste that I deem prestigious. To each their own.
Yes, but restoring user generated content that was deleted by the creator without their consent is. That is what we are talking about here.
You seem to have a crystal ball and know the future, so who am I to argue.
First of all: if Reddit really is doing this, then it is committing an illegal act. At least in the EU, I'm sure in other jurisdictions also. There are in fact laws protecting the users. Second of all: Reddit cannot force users to post and moderate, and without those things there is no Reddit. Have you heard of Digg, by any chance?
> The funny thing is that this is all over a stupid API that was causing more harm to Reddit than it was functioning as a public service.
It was absolutely functioning as a public service, because third-party apps are the only ones that are actually usable. Especially so for moderator activities (that Reddit depends on to exist) and even more especially so for blind people, to whom Reddit official app does not cater.
Do you know what else functions as a public service? Unpaid moderators!
> The whole thing about API back in 2000s is it allows users to interface with Reddit programmably.
I remember those times very well, and that was not "the whole thing" at all, there was a "bait and switch" from independent forums to centralized services based on a promise of openness forever. But I digress. Who cares what the "whole thing was about back in 2000s"? It doesn't matter what it was about, the only thing that matters is what the situation is now, and the situation is that Reddit as we know it is an interdependent partnership between a company and an extensive international community. This is what survived to 2023 and this is what matters in 2023.
> Lesson: APIs are expensive to maintain and no real profitable business is going to keep them around unselfishly.
Another lesson: a profitable business cannot extract value from the unpaid work of enthusiasts while at the same time expecting to be able to treat said enthusiasts as valueless replaceable cogs.
It is weirdly comforting to observe how certain things never change over the years, even in tech. One of them is the hyperboles people deploy when attacking programming languages that they do not like: "I don’t know of any tech companies using Python for anything serious anymore". I mean, except for being the 4th most popular language amongst professional according to last year's Stack Overflow survey. Only JavaScript, SQL and HTML/CSS are more popular. Yes, yes, I am sure it is dying... any moment now.
To be honest, this comment makes my blood boil. Her "last change biologically"? This is not some career/investment/whatever cold calculation. This is not about her, it's about the kids. Having kids is not a right, it is instead a possibility that comes with serious responsibility.
> I think people should stop assuming malice where other, equally probable, rationales could apply. Let’s give the benefit of the doubt.
I wonder if the same "benefit of the doubt" would be so readily applied to a poor person. I can picture the scenario: some poor woman that is likely going to face a long prison sentence decides to have two kids meanwhile. I can very well imagine what people would say in this case.
Which is pretty low for a capital of a prosperous western country (order by that column and you will see). Maybe I do actually know enough people to make a statistic.
Would I like it to be even lower? Sure.
> Please first reduce by 95% the amount of car, taxi and motorcycle and then we'll talk about scooter.
We are taking steps to reduce cars here. Let us do that AND TALK ABOUT SCOOTERS. The citizens decide what is important to them. Thanks.
E-scooter made life objectively harder for cyclists. They are abandoned in the middle of bike lanes and create danger, or in the spots were you could park your bike safely. They make every walking street worse, you are always bumping against them. And they seem to be mostly used by a young, well-off, highly entitled / inconsiderate demographic.
They do nothing to improve life in the city. They are a toy that makes life worse for almost everyone. I can't wait for them to be banned here also.
Large language models are a true breakthrough and they are, in my view, much more useful than ChatGPT. They allow for some fundamental NLP tasks that can then be used as building blocks for truly intelligent systems.
Symbolic AI failed because it could not deal with complexity and fuzziness. Statistical learning can deal with complexity and fuzziness, but it is very limited when it comes to rigorous reasoning.
I believe that true AI will combine both ideas, and I have a strong hunch that neurosymbolic approaches will be crucial, but nobody really knows yet how to create a true neurosymbolic approach that seamlessly combines the strengths of symbolic and statistical approaches. My fear is that we throw the baby out with the bath water when people are finally fed up with ChatGPT hype, and then we will have to wait a couple decades before the next serious attempt at AI is made.
This is a very simple and even tautological conclusion, that a lot of smart people I know seem to have a hard time accepting. I think that this is because people assume that science assumes materialism, which it doesn't, of course. Science requires no metaphysical commitment.
It's like saying "the real Albert Einstein", as opposed to good Albert Einstein the baker, who is a local celebrity because of his amazing Apfelstrudel.
I guess it is confusing for Americans to find themselves as the cultural minority in some environment.
You pointed out other human rights violations in the world, even though I never claimed that human rights violations only take place in Qatar. You failed to mention what is it that I am "deeply mistaken" about.
I also did not advocate for the OP to be forced or prevented from doing anything. I encourage them to use their nice skills on something that does not help further the agenda of oppressive regimes, but that is my view and opinion. The only person here who seems to want to impose anything on others is you, by appealing to site rules in an attempt to silence me.
I decide where I draw the line, not you.
It is important to make it political. The stadiums where this WC is taking place were built by slaves. The host country rejects fundamental humanitarian values such as respect for sexual preferences. Innocent people who did nothing wrong to anyone else except loving someone from the same gender are hurt by them if they thinnk they can get away with it. All of this is deeply unfair and heartbreaking and it should not be overlooked in the name of "cool and fun", if you are to keep any pretense of basic decency.
I believe this sort of news appears in the context of it being commonly argued that in a "British style constitutional monarchy" the monarch holds no real power, and people who suggest otherwise are often dismissed as lunatics.
It is good to point out that one cannot have it both ways. Either this is indeed a coup, or the regime is not a full democracy.