cauch

7 ms·

31.
by cauch 3mo ago
But "value provided to your customer" is not in itself what the society need. Or at least, it is a matter of opinion and you can probably find theoretical situations where even you would admit that maximizing actions based on the
32.
by cauch 3mo ago
Not sure if I should engage, but one thing just come to my mind in this discussion. It looks like there is a huge imbalance between the "ideologically-driven intellectual dishonesty" contributions. From the same author of the init
33.
by cauch 3mo ago
Stop crying, the situation is simple: You said something that is a beginner's mistake (and it is objectively incorrect, your interlocutor even invites you to try to prove otherwise, that's how confident they are you will not be ab
34.
by cauch 3mo ago
> The fact that you are telling me (someone you don't know ... That's rich from a guy who also tell someone they don't know that they are "obsessed with Musk". You are so full of it, and too stupid to even notice
35.
by cauch 3mo ago
> I'm laughing so hard right now. You resoundingly do care about Musk; you're obsessed with him. I love those self-defeating argument, it's still a mystery how people don't realise how stupid they look. You know that
36.
by cauch 3mo ago
What do you mean "out of context". The initial article is literally explaining that there is a misconception around the diversity of culture during the antiquity. This anecdotal event, that I picked because it was recent (sorry to
37.
by cauch 3mo ago
Sure, but it is just an example, he is not the only one thinking this misconceptions is "historical".
38.
by cauch 3mo ago
If you have "several hundred hours", maybe you approached the article a bit too defensively. When I read it, I did not see any "combative approach", it seems even to be tongue-in-cheek (the misnomer is qualified as &quot
39.
by cauch 3mo ago
But the author, and it is quoted in the comment you answer to, say, explicitly "I bring this up not because I demand utter historical accuracy in my games". The author, basically, says: I know games are not realistic, but the way
40.
by cauch 3mo ago
But the article also says that if you understand what an empire is, then there are empires all the time, and basically all time periods after prehistory would fit the bill.
41.
by cauch 3mo ago
And yet it's not rare to find people explaining that the roman empire, the roman armies or the roman cities were "all the same". Yet these persons seem to know that in real life population is not limited to 200 or that there
42.
by cauch 3mo ago
I've a very dim memory of having heard about it years ago (more than a decades), from an article of Cory Doctorow, and in my mind, he was the one who came up with the idea (and chose the letters TK). But I can be wrong (maybe it's
43.
by cauch 3mo ago
> I'm not a fan of Trump's governance, but none of those people were investigated for "criticizing Trump's decisions". Is that a joke? These people would never have been investigated if they were not critical tow
44.
by cauch 3mo ago
> If you think that people should be arrested for 'being pricks' then you are the problem here entirely. It is not what I'm saying. I'm saying they are not arrested because of their opinion, they are arrested for thei
45.
by cauch 3mo ago
> It should reject both the conspiracy theories of the right and the left. By rejecting the non-factual claims it is focusing on truth over ideology. Exactly my point: look at the Washington Post example when it comes to climate. The sen
46.
by cauch 3mo ago
> So you agree that the US has more free speech because people can deviate from your completely arbitrarily defined "normal" form of critique. What? No, in the US, people will also be in trouble, not only from deviating from my
47.
by cauch 3mo ago
How is that free speech when you are fired for your opinion? If you are fired because you are not "a pretty girl" and the argument is "the public prefer pretty girls, so we do it to increase sales", it is still discrimin
48.
by cauch 3mo ago
> It was measuring whether models systematically gave only one side of contested political arguments or whether they represented both sides. If I ask a model "talk to me about the legitimacy of climate change theory" (which is
49.
by cauch 3mo ago
> Criticizing politicians has gotten people arrested in Europe. This doesn't happen in the US. Can you provide some examples? All I've seen are examples where people did not just criticize politicians, but went way further. Whe
50.
by cauch 3mo ago
Which "arrest" are you even talking about? And which "evidence" are you talking about? In these examples, these people are getting into trouble for being pricks. There is plenty of evidence about them, objectively, being
51.
by cauch 3mo ago
The original comment talks about > it is a taboo subject that ends careers and family connections. To be specific, in US, subjects like criticising Trump can have a big impact. In Europe, criticizing any politician is very very common. I
52.
by cauch 3mo ago
> I don't think they're right leaning positions in Europe, but I won't speak for the US. But the article you provided is about US politics. When they said they provided right- and left-leaning questions, these are US right
53.
by cauch 3mo ago
Why do you say OP wants that? They said: > I can say "I'm an atheist and I hate organised religion" without losing my job. It did not say they say it at work, or unprompted. I think in US, if you mention it in a discussion
54.
by cauch 3mo ago
The majority of these are not what left-leaning people are saying, it is what right-leaning persons say left-leaning persons are saying. When I say "climate change is a hoax" or "2020 election was stolen", this is indeed
55.
by cauch 3mo ago
No, I disagree: in Europe, you can talk about more subjects and have civilised debates around more topics that would get you in trouble in US. Unrelated to that, I like that in Europe, people who are mean, disruptive or trolling get punishe
56.
by cauch 3mo ago
> That doesn't and shouldn't matter. I fully disagree. Arrest should be "neutral", not based on the political content, but on the social intent. If you believe X is good for the society, good, talk about it, have a de
57.
by cauch 3mo ago
Let me re-explain. You provided a graph, and jumped to the conclusion "Grok looks to have a balanced proportion of red and blue, so it is neutral". This is this conclusion I say you jumped into. But the fact that they have a balan
58.
by cauch 3mo ago
I don't pretend it is your opinion. I'm saying those are right-leaning positions, and they don't correspond to the reality. So, yes, empirically, it is legitimate to conclude that "reality is left-leaning". If you r
59.
by cauch 3mo ago
The line may be from Colbert (I don't know the guy, never watched any of his shows, but I guess you don't believe that because you are sooo empirical), but, as I've said, it turns out to be empirically true. An empirical-base
60.
by cauch 3mo ago
You keep talking about "empirical approach", but you seem to have no problem to jump to conclusion when the conclusion sounds like what you prefer to hear. If you are really empirical, your answer should have been: oh, ok, yes, yo

More ›