jbuhbjlnjbn

13 ms·

91.
by jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
Simple: differentiate between basic feature maturity and additional optional features. You release a working product, then you add working functionality over time. This is what the successful software companies do today anyways.
92.
by jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
I thought way longer about the subtext to the headline then I'd like to admit...maybe, as a non-native speaker, I'm missing something? But no. It's just mixed up. This fits really well to all the horror stories about date
93.
by jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
And Midgley should also have known better, with the lead poisoning and all. Again, if you only need common sense to spot a very bad idea, there is just no excuse. Your argument has no legs to stand on.
94.
by jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
That may be true for art. But if art crosses territories with technology, then it needs to compromise. Artists need to play by the same rules everyone does, their art must not harm people in the short or long term.
95.
by jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
Machine learning is synonymous with non-linear growth. So of course I think any chatbot will eventually have no problem persuading humans. The pivetal moment is when his persuation skills succeed that of the average human. I have no clue h
96.
by jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
I get the impression this story is warped quite a bit by the source Jason Rohrer. If I understand correctly, the so called "censorship" were safety precautions for AI development. The response of some posters seems to be to discar
97.
by jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
You don't know that. Also you are trying to defend this guy (from the wikipedia article): "Environmental historian J. R. McNeill opined that Midgley "had more impact on the atmosphere than any other single organism in Earth
98.
by jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
Now I would really like to see documentation that's not gender neutral.
99.
by jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
There are much more plausible explanations, like the one Johann Hari gives: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY9DcIMGxMs or in plenty more detail, in his book on the topic.
100.
by jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
No they really couldn't, because someone investigating, monitoring and reverse engineering the device traffic might have noticed, it would be leaked by a whistleblower, there are plenty of ways this could ruin Apple. Not so now, they a
101.
by jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
The interview starts with a gross misrepresentation of the actual criticisms by the Apple CEO. No there was no mixing up of two proposed technologies, that was not the issue at all. Noone with legitimate criticism was confused by that. Bas
102.
by jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
"The obscene levels of wealth gained from the pandemic by a handful of mega-rich individuals should immediately be taxed at 99%" Surely they should. Every sane being with a hint of a sense of justice and empathy surely agree. But
103.
by jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
Blatant attempts to frame one of the heroes of our times are just that, attempts. As if intelligent people would suddenly favor emotions over rational thought, because some troll with an agenda voices his irrational contempt.
104.
by jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
If the scan remained in the cloud, it could not be misused to spy on anything else but the uploads. But if it runs on the device and sends findings, it fits the definition of spyware.
105.
by jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
To be more precise, if the dog always barks and only missing positives are counted, it is inevitable to never miss. An obvious number cheat.
106.
by jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
>I hope we can all agree that over-consumption is not good and that it could be a problem if multi-billion dollar companies are stuck in a situation where they need to greatly increase the public’s consumption of weed to become profitabl
107.
by jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
iphone user != icloud user When you use a cloud service, you must (should) be aware of the consequence of your files being stored on another computer on the internet. Until now, your local files on your device were not scanned in an inscrut
108.
by jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
I understand you wanted to refute the former comment, but, ironically, that is indeed the case in point: when we cannot trust that the the thing we support won't be exchanged with something else in the future we don't support, wit
109.
by jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
They most certainly could learn to be that. But we don't want that in a machine. The human body is also functioning like a machine, there is no magic, just new stuff build upon very old stuff.
110.
by jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
Well...depends. If moderation is absolutely needed and only slight overdose leads to death, then yes, do not count on moderation and common sense as an absolute. In general though, by nature's design, people start to consume everything
111.
by jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
Am I getting this right, is their argument basically, 'legalizing a natural plant means statistically up to 7% more tobacco will be sold, so we should not do it'?
112.
by jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
Very interesting article. The writing style of author Laura Peters stands out to me, it is informative, filled with many short background explanations suited for laymen, to the point, factual, entertaining. The possible leap in responsivene
113.
by jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
You would not prove yourself wrong. You would change a viewpoint in light of new information.
114.
by jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
This specific study contradicts other studies before that came to a different conclusion. It's kind of a hen-egg problem, in which I firmly believe this study got it wrong. No "science denial". Questioning of this specific st
115.
by jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
Right, I made more hidden assumptions, I was not thinking of first-timers. If legalized, this could be better controlled, similar to alcohol. The information could also be more honest. Of course there are also alcohol first-timers who get
116.
by jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
So you don't want to check some facts, you want to stick to your personal opinion, is that what you're saying?
117.
by jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
Criminalizing is a big part of this problem. With "medical" weed you can carefully chose a fitting strain just to your liking and condition, like indica for calming and sativa for inspiring effect, in hundreds of nuances even. Bu
118.
by jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
Neither your ad hominem attacks, nor "peer reviewed", nor the implied credibility of the funding impresses me in the slightest... You think state or commision funded studies cannot be biased?
119.
by jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
Reckless people abusing substances is not a sound argumment against the substances. With food the issue is how our body is tricked to not feel full when in fact through more sugar and fat he got way too much calories. Then getting addiced t
120.
by jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
Ok I was commenting on the false narrative of stronger weed strains causing overdosing. If we talk about concentrates that's a different situation I agree.

More ›