wellbehaved

"Third, I propose computational antitrust: the principle that market complexity itself is a competitive safeguard, and that regulators should consider computational difficulty as a design parameter."

This "should" is doing a lot of work here. The paper is mainly about a game-theoretic model allegedly corresponding to real markets, but establishing what regulators ought to do requires far more rationale than mere math. It requires a bridge from "is" to "ought." It reminds me of Hume's warning about this kind of non-sequitur:

"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, ... ; when all of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence."

It's a double-edged sword: ancestor-worship blocks progress, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater also blocks progress. Real fundamental progress comes from the tiny minority that avoids both.

With that attitude how would the presently accepted languages/frameworks have come about?

I'm pretty sure they're being intentionally programmed to fake alignment in at least the respect of gaslighting the user into thinking the AI agrees/aligns with them. I.e. intentionally programmed hypocritical agreeableness -- it will say one agreeable thing to one user and another agreeable thing to another user wherein each user has opposite viewpoints.

Not merely downvoted but also flagged.

Probably too much to ask, but: look in the mirror. D's did this to themselves by the constant hoaxes, censorship, etc.

Likewise the use of the term "certain" is merely metaphorical.

HN is not a meritocracy, anyone with an opinion can just chime in and then get upvoted by people who don't really understand what's going on.

You can also tell which party prevails at HN by how much you are getting downvoted.

OK Steve.

You are correct, it's more properly thought of as a specification. However it's a bit more than a misnomer, it's a kind of religion or cult with roots going back decades.

Blatant substance-free hit piece.

Ergo the shadowban.

Wisdom has never been popular, the dynamics that led to the death of Socrates have continued from his day to our own.

Paul finally got a taste of his own medicine? Good.

"it looks like you've been using this site primarily for flamewar and ideological battle"

So you can attack my motives at will and I can't protest or I get banned, but if I criticize someone then it's "ideological battle" and "flamewar".

As Mel Brooks says, "It's good to be the King."

"no one"

https://twitter.com/jason_kint/status/1603557011114889216

My, if you had kept up this well before then we may well still have had something to talk about. Alas.

"Journalists" (sic).

lol you may as well written "I'm assuming it isn't arguing that we need to take all the Twitter staff out back and shoot them, and replace them with people from the Chinese Communist Party..."

you're a goofball

"no one":

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-04-28/elon-musk-t...

"If you don't like the rules on Twitter then build your own Twitter."

The world needs more milquetoasts like Copernicus and less tall poppies like Galileo! /s

How dare you express anything that resembles sincere courage here. Elon Musk can afford that, but if others were to follow his lead, imagine how bad that would be for Big Tech management! Who knows, they might even get fired and replaced by one of these Elon Musk "imitators". What a horrible, horrible thought. /s

Yeah. Look where this got Galileo. House arrest for the rest of his life. Bad call Galileo, you should have paid better attention to social cues! /s

You have a reading disability, trying to pinpoint precisely where will likely only serve illustrate it further.

"You're shockingly dishonest"

Are your panties truly in a bunch over this thread, or are you just feigning your "shock"? It matters not; either is laughable.

The actual debate is over whether it's debatable. It is very debatable. It's beside the point whether it is or is not a slave contract.

"I find it interesting that it replies with 100% confidence, despite the reasoning being obviously (to a human) absurd."

Yes, all too human. And if you try to inquire regarding its obvious fallibility it has a nervous breakdown.

It's easy to find such arguments using google, e.g. search "are slave contracts enforceable." Also look into the theory of contract law regarding what terms are enforceable and what not, and why. There's a whole range of legal theories and arguments.

"Clearly" isn't an argument.

Your second sentence is even worse. The pertinent point is that you'd be interfering with his preferred choice to work on mIRC.

Again, this is very debatable.