Dylan16807

8 ms·

61.
by Dylan16807 10d ago
Saying something in a teasing way doesn't make immune to criticism or immune to being a bad comment.
62.
by Dylan16807 10d ago
wget ignores robots.txt outside of recursive mode. I think it's correct to do so, and I think an AI loading a handful of pages in response to a command should be about the same.
63.
by Dylan16807 10d ago
If you make up a person to insult then yeah it's still ad hominem.
64.
by Dylan16807 11d ago
> Exactly Please use very different wording from "impossible" or "can't be done" then. It not being price-competitive is a far weaker claim.
65.
by Dylan16807 11d ago
Sure, streaming services usually don't have ads. But you're paying a lot of money for specific content there. I'm talking about normal web page stuff. And if you're not seeing ads there, then either you go to very few
66.
by Dylan16807 11d ago
I interpreted that as you saying in a few months you could write the code but not to those standards. If a single person can do the full job to full standards in a few months, then the whole idea of it being too annoying for a human to ev
67.
by Dylan16807 11d ago
For product quality and ads, 90% of the time you don't really have options. For the former, it's so hard to figure out which product is 15% more expensive because it reinforces the weak points and lasts 3x as long. For the latte
68.
by Dylan16807 11d ago
That's not even something the average person would call a tariff. I don't know why they used the word.
69.
by Dylan16807 11d ago
Well there is the option to make Amazon responsible for what they sell...
70.
by Dylan16807 11d ago
Can you do better than "measures"
71.
by Dylan16807 11d ago
This is the fastest I've ever seen goalposts move. Like, this is a completely different claim from "It would be too annoying for a human to ever write code to standards this high".
72.
by Dylan16807 11d ago
But don't say "that wouldn't work" when you actually mean "it needs an update". It works on the old Google method, so even if it doesn't follow redirects on other sites, it could easily follow them on Goo
73.
by Dylan16807 11d ago
In 2014 they got rid of the bulk of QA. That's probably the biggest turning point.
74.
by Dylan16807 11d ago
"features" for logging in is in a broad sense reasonable. When one of those features is being able to see the most recent tweets from an account, that's asinine. In other words: If you link to a profile page, X doesn't
75.
by Dylan16807 11d ago
Youtube is pretty much fine. Outside of a few janky age restrictions, you can just go to youtube and watch videos. Remember right at the start: "There's no reason you can't abolish login walls while still serving ads."
76.
by Dylan16807 12d ago
The first paragraph is enough for context. The real case is in the future. The appeal was just for the injunction.
77.
by Dylan16807 12d ago
When they got the content for free, usually yes.
78.
by Dylan16807 12d ago
I meant what I said. Companies are allowed to be rude to everyone but it's still bad for them to be rude.
79.
by Dylan16807 12d ago
And when the creator decided to make that free to access, it's improper for a company to throw up a wall in front of it.
80.
by Dylan16807 12d ago
I do not "immensely" benefit from free access to servers that will relay public microposts. I don't think my accesses even cost X a dollar per year. I would happily step in with my own server to replace 10x or even 100x the
81.
by Dylan16807 12d ago
Whether it's a brutal price is separate from where it's fair for the hardware costs that went into it. I don't want to buy that high end cell phone. First because I already have one (it would be very nice if I could have m
82.
by Dylan16807 12d ago
From what I can find of early 2000s predictions, plenty of informed people saw good odds of strong AI by 2050.
83.
by Dylan16807 12d ago
Deep commentary on an unverified proof of this level requires extreme expertise. So the existence of some shallow commentary is uninteresting; it doesn't actually imply pettiness or deflection or anything like that because it's so
84.
by Dylan16807 12d ago
> If you had asked 100 people in 2010 whether they would see AI that could actually pass the Turing test in their lifetimes, you would have got 100 "no"s. There's no way that's accurate. We already had big claims of t
85.
by Dylan16807 12d ago
I get what you're saying, that it's "thermodynamics violation OR trick". But if you're checking whether the ad is lying at face value, you exclude tricks like dry ice or precooling.
86.
by Dylan16807 13d ago
But what's the goal? And as long as it's one big crash, at the end things stop inflating and all prices are higher and all wages are higher and everything is pretty much back to normal.
87.
by Dylan16807 13d ago
> Isn't that the same mechanism as the one you were saying it didn't need to use, though? In my second comment? I was replying to a detailed explanation of the old mechanism that ended with "that is no longer possible&qu
88.
by Dylan16807 13d ago
Whatever, I'm not here to argue about it, but it's what people are implying with the autocorrect thing, not stuff about determinism.
89.
by Dylan16807 13d ago
The autocomplete argument is calling them fundamentally dumb and not self aware. That's separate from free will. A cat can have free will but we don't care much about its desires, and even if the universe is deterministic we sti
90.
by Dylan16807 13d ago
Customers shouldn't have to boycott to convince companies to make a good product. Companies should value millions of happier customers over a negligible change in product design cost. Also do you think people wouldn't buy just

More ›