_petronius
The whole point is -- to you this is extremely clear, along one axis of interpretation. To other people it may be extremely clear along another; the issue is those two "obvious" interpretations don't actually align.
- What counts as "in the park"
- What counts as a "vehicle"
- If it is both a vehicle and in the park, is justified?
- Is a justified violation of the rules still to be considered a violation?
The rusting, decomposing hulk of the United States
is moored across Columbus Boulevard from Ikea,
rearing weirdly over the old municipal pier
on the mostly derelict docks in Philadelphia.
I’d forgotten how immense it is: I can’t imagine
which of the hundreds of portholes looked in
on the four-man cabin five flights down
I shared that first time I ran away to France.
We were told we were the fastest thing afloat,
and we surely were; even from the tiny deck
where passengers from tourist were allowed
our wake boiled ever vaster out behind.
That such a monster could be lifted by mere waves
and in the storm that hit us halfway across
tossed left and right until we vomited
seemed a violation of some natural law.
At Le Havre we were out of scale with everything;
when a swarm of tiny tugs nudged like piglets
at the teat the towering mass of us in place,
all the continent of Europe looked small.
Now, behind its ravelling chain-link fence,
the ship's somnolent carcass, cables lashed
like liliputian leashes to its prow, its pocking,
once pure paint discoloring to blood.
Upstream, the shells of long-abandoned factories
crouch for miles beneath the interstate;
the other way the bridge named after Whitman
hums with traffic towards the suburbs past his grave;
and "America's mighty flagship" waits here,
to be auctioned, I suppose, stripped of anything
it might still have of worth, and towed away
and torched into pieces on a beach in Bangladesh.I know the AI ultras get mad when you point out that AI slop is bad quality, looks bad, and results in a worse aesthetic experience, but it's reasonable to have taste and to rebel against all design and illustration being brought down to the level of obvious low-effort content. Just because you have no taste, does not mean that other people must have no taste, or that having taste is somehow elitist.
The tradeoff you gotta contend with is that by making AI-style art effectively zero-cost and everywhere, not only does it immediately signal zero effort/taste on the part of the people using it, it also makes everything look the same. Composition, color choices, and style of AI-generated art is so samey, and people respond to that sameness negatively, for good reason.
As an art teacher of mine often quipped, it does not matter if it took you five minutes to make it, it just can't look like it took you five minutes to make it. Art tickles the brain when the viewer perceives aesthetic choices being made -- interesting, sometimes surprising, or skillful ones -- and the choice of AI-generated art signals to the viewer that no such choices were made.
(If AI is used is actually ultimately irrelevant, it's whether something is crap and lazy people can tell it's crap and lazy.)
There are more types of politics that national and international. Local, state/provincal, city, etc. The close it is to home the more you'll see the effects, and the more power you'll have. But accepting the supine position of "well I can't do anything" only guarantees your powerlessness. Fight for the future you want! Convince 5 people that something is important, and you're already 500% up. It scales like crazy.
If you could solve all those problems and still had to go listen to the Notar recite the contract in a monotone, it would be a worth trade.
People are being hurt by this, because "just pixels on a screen and bytes on a disk" can constitute harm due to the social function that information serves.
It's like calling hurling insults at someone as "just words" because no physical violence has occurred yet. The words themselves absolutely can be harm because of the effect they have, and also create an environment that leads to further, physical violence. Anyone who has experienced even mild bullying can attest to that.
Furthermore women and girls are often subject to online harassment and humiliation. This is of course part of that -- we aren't talking about fictional images here, we are talking about photos of real people, many who are children, being manipulated to shame, humiliate, and harass them sexually, targetted at women and girls overwhelmingly.
Advocating for the freedom to commit that kind of harm against other people is gross, and you should reconsider your views and how much care you have for other people.
The whole post comes off a bit as someone who doesn't really understand the passenger air travel industry very well, and isn't particularly interested in changing that.
If e.g. retention correlates to watch time (or some other metric like "diversity of content enageged with"), then you will optimize for the short list of metrics that show high correlation. The incentive to have a top-tier experience that gets the customer what they want and then back off the platform is not aligned with the goal of maintaining subscription revenue.
You want them to watch the next thing, not the best thing.
"Think of the children" is weaponized for censorious purposes, but also the harms of social media are well documented (unlike many of the other moral panics fuelled by this phrase). Communication channels are becoming managed spaces, but by private companies not accountable to the electorate, not by the state.
I'm not sure a blanket under-16s ban on all social media is the right answer, but there are really good reasons why people support this that you need to engage with to have a useful discussion here.
Drive-by anti-intellectualism like this is the death of interesting conversation, truly.
Tried restarting the app, and disconnecting and reconnecting the Airpods with no luck.
Love the concept, though!
Covid normalized remote working, but also didn't necessarily make companies and teams _good_ at it; I suspect RTO is easier than fixing the fact that your org sucks at remote work. It is hard to do well! it requires different strategies than just picking some software.
Partial/voluntary RTO also is the worst of both worlds: people coming in the office to sit on Zoom with colleagues who never do. Ultimately, I think RTO is a valid choice as a company, and a lot of orgs are coming to regret not messaging from the beginning that remote would be a temporary arrangement during the pandemic.
This is not an unusual policy situation at all in Europe, although indeed not universal.
Many organizations, especially large ones, are very slow at making decisions, even if they ultimately make the right ones. Bringing in people outside the hierarchy to synthesize a great deal of info from across the org, and give upper management the insight to make a decision quickly (and, depending on the engagement and the firm, also implement it) is very often worth the bill at the end.
I will not pretend all of the work we do is 100% the most urgent work all of the time, but I have helped make the sausage for a number of years now, and despite the usual disparaging comments in this thread, it really is often an intellectually rewarding environment where you work with smart colleagues and help people solve real problems.
Regardless, the idea that the government can only tax you if it directly gave you sufficient benefit, _in your assessment_, is of course nonsense. Taxes are what you owe to the society you live in, not about what society owes to you.
If you are lucky enough to be internationally mobile, this does not exempt you from contributing to the communities you spend time in as you travel around the world. You cannot expect to arrive in a country, earn money from it, and depart again without paying your fair share of taxes.
If you do not like how a country has structured its tax law and what priorities it has as a society, you are of course always free to not move there in the first place.
I don't really know why the situation is so terrible -- there are many good and competent security professionals working in corporates in Germany -- but perhaps as the post alludes to it is due to a lack of legal or regulatory pressure to date.
Housing is in such brutally short supply (goes for major cities in North America as well as Europe) that not only can we not afford to be picky, but in terms of actual effect it doesn't matter: social housing is as effective as luxury housing. Sometimes it is _less_ effective at achieving social goals, if rich people are also trying to get their hands on the same housing stock, because there is not enough to meet demand at the top end of the market.
I think people misunderstand the state of the housing market: it is brutally expensive because of chronic, decades long undersupply, not building enough to meet _new_ demand each year, thus the "debt" in supply has compounded massively. This has strong and weird market effects, such that building lots of cheap housing at huge scale is only a partial solution (and the scale actually needed to alleviate the problem is much larger than anyone is actually willing to contemplate right now).
There is research[0] about causes of homelessness and about the effect[1] of house building on homelessness.
This is a well-studied issue, that, as the linked article likes to point out, people are just opposed to the solution for reasons of personal interest and (to me, bizzare) bias. Building houses reduces homelessness, increases supply for everyone, and lowers housing costs for everyone. It has no economic downsides, and significant personal upsides for everyone (cheaper housing and more options for you, dear reader).
[0]: https://homelessnesshousingproblem.com/ (taken from elsewhere in this thread) [1]: https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1314...
[0]: https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1314...
> The entire article is saying "it looks kinds like a human in some ways, but people are being fooled!"
> You can't really say that without at least attempting the admittedly very deep question of what an authentic human is.
> To me, it's intelligent because I can't distinguish its output from a person's output, for much of the time.
I think the article does address that rather directly, and that it is also is addressing very specifically your setence about what you can and can't distinguish.
LLMs are not capable of symbolic reasoning[0] and if you understand how they work internally, you will realize they do no reasoning whatsoever.
Humans and many other animals are fully capable of reasoning outside of language (in the former case, prior to language acquisition), and the reduction of "intellgence" to "language" is a catagory error made by people falling vicim to the ELIZA effect[1], not the result of a sum of these particular statistical methods being equal real intelligence of any kind.