Maybe a manual dial to cycle through the available nearby vehicles then. The idea is just that there should be a way for it to be clear who you are contacting and where their vehicle is on the road relative to yours.

My interpretation of Book of Job is God and Satan are in a toxic relationship where they egg each other on to fuck with people so you shouldn’t trust either of them.

I just want a way to save the chicken :(

I don’t know but now I’m wondering, do the Greek gods qualify?

To me the situation you’re describing and the OP situation seem pretty similar; using threats to overrule the established system of property rights. But of course that system is how society decides what new people can move in, and something has to decide that.

What the author seems to be proposing is something like true crime media but for environmental crimes.

And if you’re tempted to turn around and say that environmental crimes don’t happen because of individuals, but because of “the system”, I hear you. Social structures, ideologies and politics have a profound impact on human behaviour. Using this term – the system – can feel like a profound contribution to a difficult discussion, underpinned by the desire not to over simplify. But exactly who, or what, is the system?

A serial killer also lives in a society, and we can blame society for any hardships they may have faced. But if on a true-crime show I were to simply cite “the system” as a motive for murder, people would want me to be more precise. We understand that choices are involved, and motives are personal, not just systemic. Otherwise, wouldn’t we all be criminals?

Seems like a cool idea.

the bigger issue is that it’s being used in a GPL3 project which kind of isn’t allowed

I followed the links and I think the original argument being referenced has been twisted around a bit game-of-telephone style, GPL prohibiting inclusion of LLM generated code isn’t what it’s claiming, it’s more that they think AI trained on GPL code violates it when it happens to reproduce it exactly:

it is readily apparent that GitHub Copilot is capable of returning, verbatim, already extant code (although it does attempt to synthesise novel code based on its training data). This immediately raises the issue, what happens when that code (such as the previous example) is licensed under a copyleft license such as the GPL or AGPL? How is the matter of copyright in this instance resolved?

https://github.com/ZDoom/gzdoom/issues/3395

https://www.fsf.org/licensing/copilot/on-the-nature-of-ai-code-copilots#5. What About Copyright?

It might also be the case that the GPL prohibits LLM generated code somehow, I don’t actually know, just want to point out that no one has made an argument for that.

Mythologized history to serve their racist worldview:

Right, ancient Greece and Rome were actually quite diverse and the concept of “whiteness” didn’t have much meaning thousands of years ago. Race, as we know it, is a fairly recent category. But the far-right relies on this construct of Western civilization, which for them means white civilization and culture. So they craft a narrative that begins with Greece and Rome and then continues into the medieval period up through the emergence of modern Europe.

I’d worry about getting a very biased jury

I didn’t really, I have 13 Reddit tabs and like 25 Lemmy tabs open in this browser window atm

That’s fucked up, they should not do that. Even if they do it in a way that users are actually secure (maybe generating the password in the browser, nothing serverside?), it isn’t good to train people to trust a website for this.

I don’t think the additional levels quite fit. From the original blog post:

The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to evaluate what they read. In particular, it will help them to see through intellectually dishonest arguments. An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words. In fact that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue. By giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping such balloons.

The bottom two aren’t really themselves arguments. They aren’t things you read and then make a decision whether to take seriously, but rather means of controlling what you read to begin with. So while there is reason to criticize these practices, their inclusion muddles the scope of the message. The scope of the message is important, because the ideal of free expression has become more controversial since it was written in 2008, and it’s not itself a defense of free expression, more of a proposed heuristic for getting more out of a debate with the assumption that you are approaching that debate with the intention of improving your rational understanding of something or leading others to a rational understanding.

IMO arguments about censorship and violence need to be made separately, because the value of that approach (as opposed to words being valued mainly as persuasive weapons) is in question and has to be addressed.

Until you physically can’t communicate anymore, it’s always an option to keep trying.

I am streaming my music but not like that, allow me to flex my custom setup:

So it seems like it’s something about politics but I’m not clear what you mean, like what’s an “arithmetic bubble”? What’s “it”?

I have read that this is actually a bad idea because the post office people know which addresses are vacant and know that it’s likely an illegal package because lots of people have that idea.

It’s more like a separate consideration than a part of the same spectrum, because these are just priorities that happen to contradict each other. In theory you could be both pro-choice and pro-life and try to optimize for both, making some degree of legal allowances for people to choose abortions but propagandizing against actually doing so and doing things like promoting sex education, the use of birth control, and poverty reduction that would decrease the rate of abortions. Or have a Zardoz esque ideology and be against both.

Of course most of the time pro-life seems to just be a euphemism, since people who are against the right to an abortion tend to not otherwise be concerned with things that make people more likely to want to choose abortions. They mostly just don’t want women to have an out for what they see as the rightful consequences of having sex.

Github is a way of quickly getting some indication that software is legit before you install it, because you can see at a glance various ways others have interacted with it, and potentially look into things further. If it’s on Github the code is probably at least published, which is another sign of not being sketchy, so it’s a good thing to be able to append to a web search. I also like that it’s easier to find info about how to install software from Github than from some self published website for that particular software, because the information is generally going to be in the same place and use the same conventions every time.

If you’re only writing code for yourself, Git by itself would be fine, but there’s definitely a need for something that is basically a sort of social media for software.

I think that kind of thing is more cultural than anything. Probably she doesn’t care very much whether it’s actually true or not, and feels she’d be losing face by being anything but confident about it.

Imo it’s more important that people learn that being wrong can be empowering, and how to have conversations where someone is wrong but not being put down for it, than just learning that they can be wrong.

How are being smart and being intelligent not synonyms?