frumplestlatz

7 ms·

61.
by frumplestlatz 5mo ago
State ID (usually a driver’s license) is the defacto universal ID system. It’s not hard to get, and you need it to do everything from filling a scheduled prescription, buying alcohol, entering a bar, flying on a plane, or purchasing cold me
62.
by frumplestlatz 5mo ago
Anyone arguing for “owning your bias” is trying to justify using media to influence instead of inform. We can never be perfectly unbiased, but we can certainly try. We dedicated entire higher education programs to the process of doing exact
63.
by frumplestlatz 5mo ago
If you find yourself with a view of reality that massively differs from others, you have two options. (1) Assume they’re irrational, uninformed, and wrong, or (2) Reconsider your priors and attempt to understand why they think the way that
64.
by frumplestlatz 5mo ago
He hasn’t said what the parent said he did, and in the peer comment linking a video of him saying something similar, the context supplies quite a different meaning than was implied above.
65.
by frumplestlatz 5mo ago
Thanks for the context. He’s speaking to evangelical Christians that do not regularly vote, and in the context of instituting voter ID to secure future elections. ID is required to vote in most (all?) EU states.
66.
by frumplestlatz 5mo ago
Sources for those quotes would be very helpful for anyone interested in this, because I’ve certainly never heard this before. We’re two years into his term and democracy does not appear to be dismantled, or even remotely at risk of being di
67.
by frumplestlatz 6mo ago
> That said, there is no such thing as an objective unbiased political opinion. That depends; some things (but not many) are straightforward enough that you can derive conclusions purely from first principles reasoning. If you walk a mod
68.
by frumplestlatz 6mo ago
The entire reason I keep a long-lived session around is because the context is hard-won — in term of tokens and my time. Silently degrading intelligence ought to be something you never do, but especially not for use-cases like this. I’m l
69.
by frumplestlatz 6mo ago
Well-established where and amongst who, exactly? Is it seriously a common belief that this prevents prompt injection? That would be more than a little alarming.
70.
by frumplestlatz 6mo ago
Sure. But one cannot claim to know have an infallible insight into what that truth is.
71.
by frumplestlatz 6mo ago
The article you cite refutes your claim, explicitly bringing up the lack of access to user data. I frankly don’t care if the App Store has advertisements. I would care if my data is (1) available to Apple to read by virtue of not being e2e
72.
by frumplestlatz 6mo ago
It’s interesting how selectively applied standpoint epistemology serves in furtherance of exactly one standpoint.
73.
by frumplestlatz 6mo ago
You’ve illustrated the point spectacularly.
74.
by frumplestlatz 6mo ago
Nearly everyone believes their side is the moral one. Only one side currently refuses to admit the other side might not actually be evil, just foolish.
75.
by frumplestlatz 6mo ago
What’s important is to prove useful, high-level properties derived from the specs. The specs of program behavior are just the price of admission.
76.
by frumplestlatz 6mo ago
The patronizing tone and use of totalizing moral claims gives me a much stronger hint of which side of this you're on.
77.
by frumplestlatz 6mo ago
Yes, the knowing misuse of a term like “genocide” for its emotional force is manipulative sophistry, and that's what's occurring in those examples.
78.
by frumplestlatz 6mo ago
> The second type became a political necessity, for example to protect Liz Cheney from a vengeful administration. Was it, though? It struck me as more empty political theater around an event largely defined by political theater.
79.
by frumplestlatz 6mo ago
Hilariously (to me, anyway) — I genuinely don’t know which party you’re talking about. It could truly be either, depending entirely on which party you support.
80.
by frumplestlatz 6mo ago
> With things like the genocide in Gaza ... Population: ~2,050,000 Density: 15,455.8/sq mi Words have meaning, and their emotional force derives from that meaning. The knowing misuse of a term like “genocide” for its emotional force
81.
by frumplestlatz 7mo ago
Birth certificates record sex, not gender, no?
82.
by frumplestlatz 7mo ago
If we’re going to take an ontological approach, is there a stable non-tautological definition of “woman” that admits your definition of the subcategory?
83.
by frumplestlatz 7mo ago
We carved out women’s sports because otherwise there would be no biological women in competitive sports, and that was considered to be a significant enough exclusion of half the human population as to warrant such direct intercession. Wheth
84.
by frumplestlatz 7mo ago
The categories were created at a time when “sex” and “gender” were universally considered synonymous, but they were created for the purpose of sex segregation — were they not? This issue genuinely confuses me — and I don’t seem alone in tha
85.
by frumplestlatz 7mo ago
You’re claiming female sports categories were not biologically rooted classifications?
86.
by frumplestlatz 7mo ago
Let’s reverse this. Why should physical competition be classified based on sociological conceptions around gender?
87.
by frumplestlatz 7mo ago
The classification is based on sex, expressly due to the material differences between the sexes. It is not and has never been rooted in any sort of sociological concept of gender as an independent category from one’s sex.
88.
by frumplestlatz 7mo ago
> but would be sad to be banned. Enforcing the existing and long-standing sex-based classification is not a ban; competition within one’s own sex category was always and remains permitted.
89.
by frumplestlatz 7mo ago
As far as I understand the ontology of human phenotype, it is unchanged by use of cross-sex hormone therapy.
90.
by frumplestlatz 7mo ago
Yes, and Apple did kill it, unfortunately — but it was never an effort to push code upstream into the BSDs.

More ›