davorak

9 ms·

121.
by davorak 1y ago
I do not think there are any documented cases of LLMs being reasonable friends or therapists so I think it is fair to say that: > All LLMS are bad friends and therapists That said it would not surprise me that LLMs in some cases are bett
122.
by davorak 1y ago
> I've never noticed it being that bad. Annoying? Absolutely! But not that painfully slow. I have only seen a few self hosted jira, but all of those were mind numbingly slow. Jira cloud, on the other hand, now compared to 2018 is fa
123.
by davorak 1y ago
Third American here, and the push for fat acceptance was so little of my media consumption that it surprised me so many people spent so much time and energy on the topic.
124.
by davorak 1y ago
> Even Eliezer Yudkowsky, a figurehead of the "rationalist" movement, has written about "metabolic disprivilege" and claimed that his genetics do not allow him to lose weight through dieting. This thinking runs deep.
125.
by davorak 1y ago
> This all started for me about three years ago, when I left a Google review for a doctor saying I felt discriminated against. Shortly after, I got slapped with a legal threat demanding €40,000 in damages. I ended up settling and paying
126.
by davorak 1y ago
There is genetic transfer between X and Y so you can have XX and still have male genital[1]. No expert but I thought there was a few to several cases along these lines. To my understanding chromosomes are never responsible for anything, the
127.
by davorak 1y ago
Even if it is only about sex, the statement made in the article is a binary one, "they are actually of the opposite sex", which is an oddly black and white way of putting it.
128.
by davorak 1y ago
It looks like the LICENSE is missing from the repo, the link is in the readme but it goes to a 404 page: https://github.com/feldaher/Academic-Web-Clipper/blob/main/L...
129.
by davorak 1y ago
> I'm guessing because this is basically an AI for Dummies I second this, for the silence at least, I listened to the talk because it was Andrew Ng and it is good or at least fun to listen to talks by famous people, but I did not wa
130.
by davorak 1y ago
My understanding is that in 2024 that some power of congress to delegate to power to the executive was limited in "Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo" over turning(partial I assume, I am not well versed in this) the opinion call
131.
by davorak 1y ago
> What the court can’t do is then second guess that finding—analyzing it substantively to determine whether it is correct or not. Asking weather if follows a.1 and a.2 does not seem 100% independent of asking if it is correct or not. &qu
132.
by davorak 1y ago
Complaints about "judicial activism", or complaining about "judges that go to far, have been blasted everywhere since the at least the 90s so more than my adult life, at least from what I can remember growing up in the middle
133.
by davorak 1y ago
> id the President make a finding? Here, the President did make a finding. At that point, the courts' jurisdiction gives way to the President's discretion. This seems incorrect > cases in which the Executive possesses a cons
134.
by davorak 1y ago
The reports of no due process or little to no due process for citizens[1], that is the main point to my understanding. Due process for [1] would at least include making sure the proper documentation was in order so they could easily return
135.
by davorak 2y ago
This seems like an argument against the rule of law. When arguing for demographic compositions, at least for my personal admittedly limited experience, I see arguments for how policy X upholds the law, or maybe only the spirit of the law i
136.
by davorak 2y ago
It could be a feature not a bug. Inventible violations can be used as leverage for future requests/mandates.
137.
by davorak 2y ago
> You can certainly do it, in a true emergency. This seems to qualify for many people though. Less pain than complying in many minds I am sure.
138.
by davorak 2y ago
> You're saying they advocated a policy that pre-emptively and specifically banned Anduril from posting At(edit) this point I can not double check the post to see if I was reading it right since it is currently hidden after being fl
139.
by davorak 2y ago
> An argument against the current practice where Anduril is banned? An argument against Anduril being able to post in the first place before they were banned, or maybe all corporations. The current practice was to allow Anduril to post,
140.
by davorak 2y ago
> The generic "argument" is plainly wrong for the reason forrestthewoods pointed out: this is an official section of the forums dedicated to advertising by private companies. I would not say their argument is wrong. My best rea
141.
by davorak 2y ago
I read it as, even if "corporate contributions power a huge chunk of the free software ecosystem" there is no obligation to compensate(~special treatment) them for this act.
142.
by davorak 2y ago
It is a different argument, but they do not contradict one another and they(edit) does single out Anduril in the original post: > It has nothing to do with Anduril's business (which is a separate discussion) and everything to do wit
143.
by davorak 2y ago
> Why lie? I will refer you to the guidelines > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
144.
by davorak 2y ago
cma's question was to me, after my comment, not to you. You are inserting your interruption into that. You argued that cma's question had a very particular interruption, sort of speaking for them, let them speak for themselves, or
145.
by davorak 2y ago
> A political theory has been presented several times now: Asserting "You must <insert expectation>" does not create an obligation. You can call this a political/government theory, but it does not move the conversati
146.
by davorak 2y ago
I need a political/government theory and/or for the conversation to step away from a particular definition of obligation and similar semantics, to go forward at this point.
147.
by davorak 2y ago
cma question is part of a conversation. If they wanted as a question independent of that conversation they could preference that that their question is independent of the current topic/conversation. I am going to let them assert that t
148.
by davorak 2y ago
> It would be fair to say that these things are symbols representing people This is built in to the normal context of the topic. When people talk about the constitution in this situations people are not talking about a piece of paper wit
149.
by davorak 2y ago
Not an apples to apples comparison. Marijuana laws are about States making(edit typo) laws to legalize something the federal government has laws against. That can be settled if it goes to the supreme court. This situation is about the fede
150.
by davorak 2y ago
I would not say marijuana laws are an apples to apples comparison. There are state laws in place legalizing marijuana sales in some states so that ends up being states rights/power vs federal rights and power. In the tiktok case it is

More ›