3 ms·

> It seems like the world is very maligned against your desires Oh it's not maligned against my desires! In my previous post I was referencing existing laws,

by stale2002 3y ago

> It seems like the world is very maligned against your desires Oh it's not maligned against my desires! In my previous post I was referencing existing laws, and the existing ability of individuals in society to do basically whatever they want with things that they own. In the USA, consumers have large amounts of freedom, at least individually. The specific topic of model weights makes this even more clear. I have my own GPU, and nobody knows what I use model weights for, nor are they likely to stop me, (excluding some very rare but extreme edge cases obviously!). Isn't the USA great, and isn't it amazing that "makers" have basically no effective power to stop others from using their work in ways that the maker doesn't like? That's freedom for you.

kelseyfrog 3y ago
How do you feel about terms of service or use contracts where individuals can freely enter into in order to use products?
- stale2002 3y ago
  How I feel is that for physical products, and things that users individually own (ex model weights in this example), users right now can basically ignore terms of service and use contracts in the USA almost entirely and completely get away with it. And that's a good thing. That's the existing situation that we live in now, and it is a good thing that consumers can freely ignore the TOS on basically everything and do so constantly. The exceptions, are of course, if you are referencing online services with a TOS, but that bothers me less because it involves other people and other people's live services, whereas a TOS that involves something a single user has (like a physical object or even software on someone's own computer), individually, those TOS can be completely ignored right now. Isn't our existing freedom great? Also, do you acknowledge that I made strong arguments that directly addressed your question? Because you seem to just be ignoring the content of my post by just switching to a new question every time I fully answer one with strong arguments.
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    I eschew the idea that two people need to both take a position on a topic to/and debate it. In the most extreme version(and we're nowhere near this), someone can be proven wrong without the other person being proven right or even taking a position at all. To put it in the language we're using for this discussion, if it's part of the ToS to engage with you, then I'm free to disregard it. Freedom and all that :)
    - stale2002 3y ago
      I will take this as an agreement that my arguments were strong and that I directly answered them with well thought out and supported ideas. Because, as we both know, if there was a problem with anything that I said then you would have pointed it out. So the absence of an objection is effectively an admission that you are in agreement that my points were strong. So I am glad that you agree with me!
      - kelseyfrog 3y ago
        Is this a normal interaction for you or sort of a one-off? I'm just wondering if you apply silence=agreement in the rest of your life or just online, or just now? How important is winning perceived arguments important to you and how did you get to that spot in life? Genuinely curious.
        stale2002 3y ago
        > I'm just wondering if you apply silence=agreement in the rest of your life Oh it mostly applies to online interactions where I can tell what someone is trying to do by asking pointed questions and not acknowledging the response. In that situation, it is almost 100% always because a good point was made and the other person has no way to respond to it, so they don't acknowledge it. Even what you did just now was a similar type of pattern of behavior, where you ask a question meant to imply an attack on my personal relationships (thus the "in the rest of your life" statement) instead of acknowledging the content of the post. The reason, of course, that it is much easy to switch things up to a personal attack or switch up the topic, so that you don't have to acknowledge correct responses. Its an extremely common behavior in online conversations when someone else doesn't want to admit that the other person is correct. > How important is winning perceived arguments Whoa. There doesn't have to be any fighting here! You can just say that you agree with my statements. Thats not a fight! If you agree then you agree. Problem solved. There is no need to say that you lost anything if you just admit that you agree with me. Although, that would be repeating yourself, because you already did agree with me effectively by not responding to the content of the post. That is the most common form of internet agreement and it is pretty much the only way that anyone can effectively get some to admit to agreement, like you just did. Also, I didn't bring up winning or losing at all. Nobody has to lose if you are just in agreement with me. Furthermore, I would say that 2 people coming to an agreement is a win for everyone, including you! So now that you brought up winning (I am not sure why you wouldn't want people to win. I want everyone to win, myself!), I am glad that we both get to win, although I don't think there was any "fight" to begin with.

kelseyfrog 3y ago

How do you feel about terms of service or use contracts where individuals can freely enter into in order to use products?

stale2002 3y ago
How I feel is that for physical products, and things that users individually own (ex model weights in this example), users right now can basically ignore terms of service and use contracts in the USA almost entirely and completely get away with it. And that's a good thing. That's the existing situation that we live in now, and it is a good thing that consumers can freely ignore the TOS on basically everything and do so constantly. The exceptions, are of course, if you are referencing online services with a TOS, but that bothers me less because it involves other people and other people's live services, whereas a TOS that involves something a single user has (like a physical object or even software on someone's own computer), individually, those TOS can be completely ignored right now. Isn't our existing freedom great? Also, do you acknowledge that I made strong arguments that directly addressed your question? Because you seem to just be ignoring the content of my post by just switching to a new question every time I fully answer one with strong arguments.
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  I eschew the idea that two people need to both take a position on a topic to/and debate it. In the most extreme version(and we're nowhere near this), someone can be proven wrong without the other person being proven right or even taking a position at all. To put it in the language we're using for this discussion, if it's part of the ToS to engage with you, then I'm free to disregard it. Freedom and all that :)
  - stale2002 3y ago
    I will take this as an agreement that my arguments were strong and that I directly answered them with well thought out and supported ideas. Because, as we both know, if there was a problem with anything that I said then you would have pointed it out. So the absence of an objection is effectively an admission that you are in agreement that my points were strong. So I am glad that you agree with me!
    - kelseyfrog 3y ago
      Is this a normal interaction for you or sort of a one-off? I'm just wondering if you apply silence=agreement in the rest of your life or just online, or just now? How important is winning perceived arguments important to you and how did you get to that spot in life? Genuinely curious.
      - stale2002 3y ago
        > I'm just wondering if you apply silence=agreement in the rest of your life Oh it mostly applies to online interactions where I can tell what someone is trying to do by asking pointed questions and not acknowledging the response. In that situation, it is almost 100% always because a good point was made and the other person has no way to respond to it, so they don't acknowledge it. Even what you did just now was a similar type of pattern of behavior, where you ask a question meant to imply an attack on my personal relationships (thus the "in the rest of your life" statement) instead of acknowledging the content of the post. The reason, of course, that it is much easy to switch things up to a personal attack or switch up the topic, so that you don't have to acknowledge correct responses. Its an extremely common behavior in online conversations when someone else doesn't want to admit that the other person is correct. > How important is winning perceived arguments Whoa. There doesn't have to be any fighting here! You can just say that you agree with my statements. Thats not a fight! If you agree then you agree. Problem solved. There is no need to say that you lost anything if you just admit that you agree with me. Although, that would be repeating yourself, because you already did agree with me effectively by not responding to the content of the post. That is the most common form of internet agreement and it is pretty much the only way that anyone can effectively get some to admit to agreement, like you just did. Also, I didn't bring up winning or losing at all. Nobody has to lose if you are just in agreement with me. Furthermore, I would say that 2 people coming to an agreement is a win for everyone, including you! So now that you brought up winning (I am not sure why you wouldn't want people to win. I want everyone to win, myself!), I am glad that we both get to win, although I don't think there was any "fight" to begin with.