Sure, who will it impersonate if you don’t? That’s where the bias comes in.
And yes, they do need a guide, because the way chatbots behave is not intuitive or clear, there’s lots of weird emergent behavior in them even experts don’t fully understand (see OpenAI’s 4o sycophancy articles today). Chatbots’ behavior looks obvious, and in many cases it is…until it isn’t. There’s lots of edge cases.
Something that annoys me about people who love to harp on about how bad Mozilla is because they’ve gone downhill (which they have): Who is better? Genuinely compare them to their competition. Google? Heck no. Brave? Nope. Microsoft? Absolutely not. Apple? No. People complain about how much Mozilla spends on advocacy, but then when they actually do the advocacy, they’re happy about it! They’re perpetually stuck between a rock and a hard place because they’re pulled in both directions and thus, Firefox suffers. But, are they actually a broken clock? Really?
I guess to be a little clearer: If you compare Mozilla to their past selves, they lose. If you compare Mozilla to anyone else in that space with the resources to develop a browser, they’re still the best of the bunch by a country mile.
Lots of states made flavored reusable vapes illegal, but flavored disposables are legal. Yes, it is as stupid as it sounds.
Oh, of course, it’s just their tools have gotten much better. You could have said what you just did about the internet too, and it’d also be correct, but it definitely had a big impact.
Fair, I should have said “for a bad actor”, of which I am not. I haven’t experience with the tools they’d use.
No, they’re saying it would be really easy now to create a fake image that would have in the past had that level of impact.
That’s not at all the argument I’m making. My argument is that English’s inconsistency is, at this point, the reason it is successful. By integrating everything into it, it has become a good enough medium of communication for almost everything. That would not have been possible unless the language eschewed consistency.
Really, a better argument against changing the spelling is the classic “standards” xkcd, where now you’re just making another dialect of English where they spell words differently again, and now it needs to be adopted, fracturing the language further. Honestly, though? It doesn’t matter. Fix the spelling if you want. English can take the fracturing. The changes might take, they might not, but I doubt it’ll make the language more consistent overall, for every fix you put in, you’ll have someone who disagrees and doesn’t put it in, making your dialect more consistent, but the language overall less so, but it doesn’t matter. English will continue to be inconsistent, and that’s okay, that’s why it works.
The fool’s errand is trying to make the language consistent, when it never has been, especially trying to do it via spelling. English isn’t consistent. It’s not supposed to be. It takes pieces from every other language and integrates them into English whether it makes sense to or not, leading to inconsistency. That inconsistency, I think, is by design. It makes the language more versatile than any other, a “good enough” medium of communication for everything, but usually not the best, which for communication, tends to be fine.
To the spelling point: The world, for the most part, has moved away from the grammarian tradition of the 19th and 20th century of having a handful of dictionary makers decide what English is proper and what isn’t - the language evolves on its own, and if a misspelling becomes popular enough, it becomes a proper spelling. For example, facade is a french word, spelled façade, the accent under the C means it’s pronounced like an S. We dropped it in English because we don’t use accents in English, and now we spell it facade. It’s a “misspelling”, but you’ve probably never spelled it correctly. The language was never consistent to begin with, pretending you can fix spelling to make it so is a fool’s errand.
I’m talking about the low-effort market segment that flavored juul pods, for instance, used to take up. Now, it’s flavored dispos, making your own juice, or juul-type vapes with only menthol and tobacco flavors.
In the US, replaceable pods can only be tobacco or menthol flavored, disposables can be any flavor. Yes, it is as stupid as it sounds.
Cargo is really simple, which is great, but also limiting. Maven is much more complex, but for good reason - there’s use cases, especially around multi-artifact projects and version sharing, where cargo would require either some glue or you run into some interesting edge cases. Usually, Rust isn’t used for the kinds of big, wacky projects with a million dependencies that companies write in Java/Kotlin, so those kinds of use cases are considered more unusual.
Gradle, in my opinion, makes itself complex because it’s all code, is very brittle, and several of its features just don’t work right and require workarounds. When it works, it builds fast and it works well, but getting it to work, and how often you have to get it to work again…not worth it.
https://kotlinlang.org/docs/maven.html That’s not true, you can use Maven if you want!
Yes, but you, who I assume follow this mindset, do buy things under capitalism, since you must in order to live. How, then, do you decide?
I think that is a useless mental model. It doesn’t help you make decisions except those that lead to revolution. The person you’re replying to is trying to point that out. If I want to buy a phone, which should I buy? Your rhetoric says “whichever one will lead to revolution”, which really isn’t helpful.
I love the Lua one because it’s so true, LuaJIT is magic and Mike Pall is the only one who understands it as its creator.
Yeah, after reading through, those articles equally contain cognitive dissonance. From how I read it, it’s ableist to insult intelligence because intelligence is primarily a proxy to insult mentally handicapped people, and because its criteria are largely arbitrary.
What about doing something unwise? Touching a hot stove, poking a bear, trying to jump across a wide gap you’re not sure you can make it over, these are not good ideas. The thing is: the criteria for what is “wise” is equally arbitrary! The arbitrariness of a socially-constructed idea are less important than how important the cultural zeitgeist deems the idea to be. Most socially constructed ideas have arbitrary criteria because their definitions are not strict, that alone is not enough to dismiss them outright. Their harm to the mentally handicapped could be, but I see this as a red herring to solving that problem.
Policing the language used won’t prevent them from being insulted for being mentally handicapped. People will just make up new terms, as has happened time and time again. If it becomes blasphemous to insult intelligence, another proxy for it will appear, and that will be insulted instead. They’ll insult the unwise, the foolish, the unprepared, etc. In my opinion, the attempt to stamp out ableism as you’ve described it is a thinly-veiled attempt to try to prevent people from insulting each other at all, which, while morally virtuous, is rather naïve.
Then ableism will never die. What you are requesting be done is absurd. People say things they do themself are stupid, “I just touched a hot stove without thinking, how stupid of me”, they of course would do the same to others. If that’s the correction you want, you’re going to be in the vast minority and will be fighting a losing war against core fundamentals of human behavior.
What alternative word would you use in this case, as a pejorative insult to someone’s intelligence?
Looking at the list you’ve provided, they’re all generic insults not specifically aimed at someone for doing something dumb. If the problem is that the pejorative is aimed at intelligence…ableism will never go away. People will always insult the intelligence of others when they do something dumb.
And you think there’s not bias in those rules that’s notable, and that the edge cases I mentioned won’t be an issue, or what?
You seem to have sidestepped what I’ve said to rant about how OpenAI sucks when that was just meant to be an example of how even those best informed about AI in the world right now don’t really understand it.