daenz

55 ms·

601.
by daenz 4y ago
My guess is that they've "fingerprinted" the model sufficiently that they can identify content that has been created with it.
602.
by daenz 4y ago
The final paragraph sums it up nicely: >We’ve seen this story a million times before: Crypto project is launched. Something goes wrong. Founders, investors, whales, and some of the community make out like bandits. Most people are left ou
603.
by daenz 4y ago
Sounds like 20% of management is wasting 80% of everyone's time.
604.
by daenz 4y ago
>80% of your application could be developed in 20% of the time and budget. Does it work like this? My understanding is that the Pareto Principle is that it is a natural distribution that is observed not something that is declared and
605.
by daenz 4y ago
Out of curiosity, I googled how much a DDoS attack goes for these days. Apparently they can cost as low as $10/hour. I don't know if the shady people will deliver, but that's what the internet says. So apparently it's pr
606.
by daenz 4y ago
College can increase lifelong friends at the same time that more people go to college and more people have fewer friends than ever. It's possible that there's confounding factors, like a general decline in socializing.
607.
by daenz 4y ago
I believe it's an emergent phenomenon, so unless there is a plan to enforce that from emerging, you're going to be very unsatisfied even if "the patriarchy" is removed. But my question that I want to understand is, are &
608.
by daenz 4y ago
These are great, but a few still have some "sting" on them that would set off people who are very attuned to language.
609.
by daenz 4y ago
I understand, I am asking why the gender roles being "built in" is exclusive to patriarchy. Suppose we replace patriarchy with matriarchy. Are there no built in assumptions about gender and everyone treats each other nicely?
610.
by daenz 4y ago
That's fair, you convinced me.
611.
by daenz 4y ago
>the patriarchy hurts everyone Thinking about this more, I think the far simpler explanation is "being a mean piece of shit hurts everyone" and it applies to pretty much any belief system and doesn't require a complete res
612.
by daenz 4y ago
>...therefore I believe he is an asshole Is an attack directed against the person rather than their position, and is therefore ad hominem
613.
by daenz 4y ago
Doesn't this only make sense though if patriarchy is a priori defined by gender roles? It falls apart if any non-patriarchal system develops or prefers any gender roles. On what basis is it claimed that only a patriarchy has gender rol
614.
by daenz 4y ago
That's wild. How does that work out legally? A company can sue an employee for telling a damaging (but uncontested) truth?
615.
by daenz 4y ago
Why is women demeaning men for being short a symptom of the patriarchy?
616.
by daenz 4y ago
The rest of the comment supports the first sentence.
617.
by daenz 4y ago
You're describing a difference in the outcome, which is the action + the context. I'm not saying the outcomes are the same, I'm saying the action is the same, but the context is different. Subtle distinction, but it may not e
618.
by daenz 4y ago
IANAL but would love a lawyer to chime in. My understanding was that you could indeed get in trouble if you don't cast enough ambiguity around the identity of the person/company you are trashing, but casting some ambiguity is bett
619.
by daenz 4y ago
I don't know either of you, so I don't have a dog in a fight. But when you start a post off with " so and so is a phenomenal asshole", You should know that a reasonable person reads that as an ad hominem attack, regardle
620.
by daenz 4y ago
There is no difference in the comparison because they're both based on immutable physical characteristics. There's a difference in the historical context, which you highlight.
621.
by daenz 4y ago
Yep. Nobody wants to talk about it, but the amount of abuse that is directed from otherwise-socially-conscious women towards short men is pretty disgusting. It's extremely common for groups of women to laugh at and deride short men, bo
622.
by daenz 4y ago
Ad hominem attack.
623.
by daenz 4y ago
There's a difference between keeping a secret, and avoiding legal trouble by not specifically naming an employer.
624.
by daenz 4y ago
Many people are highlighting the zero-sum nature of bonuses. I wonder how much of this problem goes away if bonuses are no longer zero-sum. In theory, it shouldn't even cost the business more money, because everyone who meets the bonus
625.
by daenz 4y ago
Thanks for hearing the feedback. FWIW I think you're putting out good content. Keep writing it for us, not the trolls :)
626.
by daenz 4y ago
I think I know what the problem is now.
627.
by daenz 4y ago
An unsolicited tip: it's off-putting to start an article with a rant about your haters. I don't know you at all, but reading that intro makes me care less about what you have to say.
628.
by daenz 4y ago
I ran it for about 6 months iirc. It never got to the size where sockpuppets were a legitimate threat or IP bans insufficient. Occasionally people would switch wifi to ban the person who banned them, but I leveraged cookies where I could to
629.
by daenz 4y ago
No I had no money coming in. I don't remember the cost tbh, but it was costing time and money, since I desperately needed to find work at the time.
630.
by daenz 4y ago
Yes iirc, but bans were throttled (N bans per hour), and by banning someone, you make yourself vulnerable to a ban, because you have to reply to their post.

More ›