Hi Tom,
I was just taking a look at your resume, and your experience at Deceased really caught my eye! I’m especially interested in your knowledge of being missed by friends and family. Did you know that complications from heart surgery is in high demand right now?
I’m a head hunter looking for dynamic individuals who are interested in positions at an exciting new startup, and I think you’d be a perfect fit!
I hope we get a chance to chat soon!
Nice, you avoided having to think on a self-imposed technicality. Real intellectual rigor there.
Makes it easy to dismiss my argument without bothering to think about it, you mean. Just take abortion, then. Or “tax is theft”, or right to bear arms, or any of a thousand other beliefs you probably don’t agree with.
So like, if you were in a restaurant and ordered food, but it never came because a couple of the servers were blocking food from being served because the company wasn’t taking a strong stance against abortion, you’d think “these good people are taking a moral stand, good for them! The company better not take any action against them to make sure I get my food!”
Or for that matter, if Google stopped all cooperation with the IDF, the company’s Jewish employees could (in fact should) disrupt business because Google was supporting terrorism?
It seems to me that you can only support forms of protest you’d be willing to accept when the other side uses them against you. Basically the golden rule.
I think the fans & press deserve equal blame for the initial hype. At some point I saw a supercut of things Sean Murray said, then the resulting headlines and Reddit posts.
In an interview, the journalist asks: “Will you be able to play with your friends in a shared universe?” The answer: “Well…we hope that eventually there will be at least some multiplayer functionality, though maybe not on day one…like maybe you could explore one another’s planets or share pictures or something.”
Headline: “NO MANS SKY WILL LAUNCH WITH MULTIPLAYER!”
Reddit comments: “I’m already forming a guild, we’re going to play as bounty hunters chasing down other players who are pirates in glorious multiplayer space battles!!”
There were tons of examples of that. Journalists would poke and prod for a soundbite, take it out of context and exaggerate it, and the community would just go batshit with their expectations.
Substitute “convince by indirect and non-confrontational means” for “trick”, and you’re saying the same thing as the original post. Makes for a shit joke though.
As a software dev and open source contributor: stay the course, then! I’ll take open source software over a union 10 times out of 10. I get paid so well for what I do that it’s silly, and I love spending my time doing the stuff I like. I’ve been a union member in other fields, it’s not an experience I’d like to repeat.
I seriously doubt anybody is contributing to open source for status & seniority. Respect, maybe. The status & seniority people become managers; as the old joke goes, that’s the best way to get them out of the workforce.
I mean, there’s not a lot of incentive for them to change the way they operate…
It's not historical consensus. It's a claim made by some historians that went viral online.
You can label your devices. When formatting, do mkfs.ext4 -l my-descriptive-name /dev/whatever. Now, refer to it exclusively by /dev/disk/by-label/my-descriptive-name. Much harder to mix up home and swap than sdc2 and sdc3 (or, for that matter, two UUIDs).
I think the joke is supposed to be "the IDF is so dumb, they think this is what a Hamas HQ looks like!"
The real joke is, that is what Hamas HQ looks like.
Nope, you're not corrected. The expansion tracks are $25, the game itself is still $60.
I've played Skyrim and Fallout 3 & 4 on Linux, and Uncharted. They worked just fine.
You need to enable Proton for all 'unsupported' titles in Steam (literally two clicks). After that…the only games I've found that don't work are down to anti-cheat. I used to occasionally have to change the Proton version for some games, but it's been a while since I had to do that.
It's nothing like gaming on Linux was 10 years ago. It's much more like gaming on Windows, the last time I did it: you occasionally find a game that needs tweaking, but 95% work flawlessly.
Rememeber that time they trained it on 4chan and it became… a Nazi?
First, you're talking about a totally different AI, right? Second…if 4chan made a version of Wikipedia, it would be full of Nazi facts. So therefore…don't trust Wikipedia? Or just don't trust Wikipedia created by 4chan?
Garbage in, garbage out.
“Making shit up” is how it functions, all the time. It has zero understanding of what it says.
You could say the same about us. We pull from our memories and say stuff, and we don't know if what we're saying is true.
If you want to show that ChatGPT is a terrible place to try to learn anything (even at a starting point, which is all I suggested), you should show some examples of where it's badly wrong or terribly biased, not ask it a question about bias and then quote it, saying "See? It's completely right!"
I'll point out, too, that saying "you can't trust it at all, because of the way it works!" is exactly what people said about Wikipedia for the first decade or more: "any random asshole can edit it at any time, you can't trust that!" But when they finally did a full analysis, it turned out that despite the fact that it didn't feel to traditionalists like it should work, it was actually more accurate than traditional encyclopedias (and like 100x larger at the same time).
Just because it seems unintuitive to you, doesn't mean it's necessarily bad.
It's much better at putting together prose than 'thinking' logically. I'm always surprised how good it is at code, but I guess they worked on that.
But I did a fair bit of traveling recently, and I was really impressed at how well it could summarize the highlights of a place, or the history. And when asked, it could go into plenty of detail. I only remember one or two outright errors, and most humans couldn't beat that.
I wouldn't try to make a product out of it, but if you keep in mind what it is and you're wary, it's a great way to get started (very much like Wikipedia).
It's not awful advice. It's better, for example, than asking pretty much any single person, since they'll also be biased and make mistakes.
It's a good way to get started on a topic, just know that it can sometimes make shit up–especially when you get into the weeds (i.e. stuff for which there isn't a lot of content on the internet to draw from).
The Israelis are not committing genocide, by any definition. They're certainly not conducting an organized mass killing of Palestinians–the Palestinian population is one of the fastest-growing populations in the world. They're not trying to deprive them of language or culture. They're just containing them–which might be a crime, but it's not genocide.
So you’re actually making a racist statement, and then ascribing a racist motive to the people that aren’t even making that racist statement.
They're cosigning Hamas. You think Hamas is above racism?
Anyway, I was just inventing a scenario in which a company might not want to hire these people. For the record, I don't believe that either the Israelis or Palestinians are evil, or should be massacred, or that every Jew supports the right-wing Israeli government or that every Palestinian supports Hamas. But Hamas does believe it, and has said so explicitly, and by calling them brave and justified freedom fighters you're kinda taking their side.
So why can’t you also condemn Israel for killing 2800 civilians non-combatants–including at least 800 children–in Gaza so far?
Who says I can't? Allow me to quote myself:
Same goes for law students who are too enthusiastic about Israel’s violent response, nobody has to hire them either.
The situation is fucked up, and I think Hamas shares a lot of the blame for the civilian casualties since they're deliberately using the civilians as a shield. But I have no problem criticizing Israel. It just wasn't relevant to this discussion.
It just drives me fucking crazy that people think they are entitled to be hired by a company, regardless of what they've said in the past. And a key word there is "they". I strongly suspect the Venn diagram of people who are currently saying "Oh my God, Davis Polk can't do this, it's an assault on free speech!" and the people who were 100% on board with Trump supporters, antivaxxers, or people throwing racial slurs while walking their dog in the park losing their jobs is pretty much a circle. Remember "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences!"?
They were right then, however annoyingly smug they were about it, and they're right now. You can say whatever you want, but not everybody is going to like it, and they are not obliged to hire you.
Lol, are you okay?
I'm not saying all/most lawyers are Jewish, I'm saying there are Jewish lawyers (and clients). I'm also not saying the Jews are responsible for genocide, I'm saying that's what the law students were saying.
This is one law firm rejecting a bunch of students that made a wild and controversial statement. There are lots of reasons why the firm might have done that. This is one example. I do not agree with the students.
Is that clear?
It’s Google devouring Google Search!