enthulhusiastic

Two seats are free on a plane, but each is in a row of three, and each of those rows already has a couple. Book 2 seats side by side.

There you go, algorithm geniuses

Oh… hackernews…

Seat booking is hard. If a parent chooses the option of unattended seating, that’s just the reality of limited resources.

The OP is acting like parents and kids are the only people who will ever want to sit together.

What happens when OP’s kid is sitting next to another family? You gonna pull off your swap then?

Airlines suck don’t get me wrong. This is someone blaming an airline for bad parenting and/or poor planning ahead.

> The intent is prevention, not justice.

Civil liability doesn't stop a dog from jumping a fence and eating a kid's face. You can already be held liable for the actions of your animal. No amount of scaring people with [insurance premiums] is going to decrease the population of these animals.

A deterrence doesn’t have to be 100% effective.

If deterrence is ineffective, turn around and look at the dog owners again. Why do people get aggressive dogs?

The fraction of people who:

- get an aggressive dog (because they’re afraid of something)

- but feel no fear of repercussions (for their aggressive dog’s behavior)

has to be very small.

———

Also, might I suggest indeed “decreasing the population of these animals”?

Yes, but imagine all the free fire we’ll have.

The focus on insurance over criminal charges or even personal civil liability is wild.

As a non-expert who has basic fucking sense:

first mistake is to approach an animal you know is hostile.

Also that specific owner of the lip-biter should be in prison. If someone actively being bitten in the face can maneuver a door closed on the dog, then so can the owner.

The owner didn’t try hard enough to help. A person in a dire situation figured this out. The owner did not. The owner is not fit for owning this dog if their level of control is less than someone who’s in panic.

There is no way this person is not responsible for buying the dog and then not acting to prevent the attack.

Most of the computation is suffering, but not wasted. It still benefits us.

And the computation has to be done even in simulation. Just better to shortcut the suffering.

I think bioengineering is a good goal. I think cyborgs are a bad goal.

Because our bodies are already peak technology.

I think the 6-million-dollar man thing is a weird goal.

Better to regrow, implant, perhaps supplement.

Full-on replacement isn’t just a “when” but a “why” and a “how do you expect to do better than evolution”.

Titanium is cool! That doesn’t make it better than muscle.

Go for a run if you want a better heart

but is changing the economy as a whole a fair characterization of UBI?

That’s a disservice to the existing complexity of modern economies.

Valid arguments not downvoted pls

nice try, sneaky prover

(thank you)

Lots of people appreciate “technically good”.

Personally I can’t stand all but a few guitar solos. “Technically good”

ELI6 why SPAG is better than just the default pretraining method (token context statistics?) of an LLM.