ruszki

36 ms·

751.
by ruszki 4y ago
Random searches for this phrase on Twitter seems to back this up somewhat. From the first about 100 which I was made, about 2/3rd was about some obvious misinformation, and a deeper analysis would probably take it higher. However, ther
752.
by ruszki 4y ago
We don’t have any proof of that, as we don’t have proof also about its opposite. We have no idea why neural nets work, or how our brain works in context of this. There is definitely something human-like in neural networks, but we don’t have
753.
by ruszki 4y ago
That’s true, however, Google also “lies” to you, and ChatGPT is quite good despite it’s not made for answering with facts specifically. It seems to me that it’s not worse averagely than Stackoverflow answers. Usually the right answer is som
754.
by ruszki 4y ago
> Truly secure systems don’t require trust. This blatant absolutist statement is completely false. It exactly means, that there is no computer which is secure today. It also means, that it’s pointless to care about security on any phone
755.
by ruszki 4y ago
Yes, I have the same feeling. It doesn’t seem organic to me at all. There were no larger outrage in comments than under any standard outrage posts. But still, this pops up continuously with such a speed all the time, that the comments under
756.
by ruszki 4y ago
I lied the last time in September 2014. I exaggerated a man’s height. And yes, I tell everybody if it’s not going well. I don’t need to be awkward like in “The Big Bang Theory” or something either. I can be nice in every single situation wi
757.
by ruszki 4y ago
I’ve never seen hard to understand language, just hard to understand code. Without exception. Do you have any specific in your mind?
758.
by ruszki 4y ago
Luckily, banks are not that effective at all as Binance.
759.
by ruszki 4y ago
I think the main problem is currently, that this works also the other way around.
760.
by ruszki 4y ago
Huge amount of scams goes through them, and effectively they help money laundering. So yes, that would be quite a change.
761.
by ruszki 4y ago
Luckily, nobody is forced to blindly believe in anything. However, there is a huge mass of people, who would benefit from blindly believing in scientific consensus, because they know too little about how to question things properly. Their m
762.
by ruszki 4y ago
I thought that I should have made a note about this in my comment, but I didn’t because the author declares that the article isn’t about the cause of these differences, or whether these are inherent differences. That’s why it’s strange for
763.
by ruszki 4y ago
Where I came from, this notion is basically non-existent. I meant sex. And also, the article didn’t state anything about gender. There is a specific footnote about this.
764.
by ruszki 4y ago
Is there anything in real life which you divide in two groups you wouldn’t get differences in some metrics on average? I’ve never heard anybody who thought that there was no differences in women and men behaviours on average.
765.
by ruszki 4y ago
The reason can be even that blatantly simple as only females can be pregnant, and until 100 years ago, they were pregnant for 5-10 years in their life. This, obviously, doesn’t mean that it’s beneficial in any sense in the current world, or
766.
by ruszki 4y ago
The possibility of good faith is enough to start a conversation. However, there is an inverse correlation of this probability, and how likely I will start a conversation, at least for me.
767.
by ruszki 4y ago
Yes, it’s more difficult to prove, but it doesn’t matter at all. There are already similar laws in US, and everywhere in the world, that are very difficult to prove that somebody broke it. Especially doesn’t matter in the context of social
768.
by ruszki 4y ago
The “it hurts me” argument is a very-very obvious red herring. If just saying “let’s kill xy” is not okay, then somebody already decides what is offensive. That somebody is for example the judges. The question always whether restricting som
769.
by ruszki 4y ago
I had a similar question in my head while I read this article. What proves that “value” to the university or to the students in an average sense was lost? A “value” which is important to school or students? How the different values (or indi
770.
by ruszki 4y ago
How can a programming language stressful or liberating at all? There is no real difference between imperative languages regarding what you can do, and minuscule one regarding how you can do them. I’ve seen hardly maintainable and understand
771.
by ruszki 4y ago
According to you then, you either believe in Musk way more than in Washington Post, or you must think that reasoning of Musk is also such a fabrication. Neither seems to me a well reasoned position with the current information available.
772.
by ruszki 4y ago
There are tons of tweets in the thread which laugh on people who think free speech is not absolute.
773.
by ruszki 4y ago
There are several countries in Western Europe where there are such laws, and it never means that.
774.
by ruszki 4y ago
This sounds good, and it would be a fine goal. The problem is that the very-very short deadline contradicts any good reasons, and he handles the whole situation terribly. I don’t think that there is any competent developer, who didn’t resig
775.
by ruszki 4y ago
Maybe the more productive people are just quicker in “measuring twice before cutting once”.
776.
by ruszki 4y ago
If there is an estimation which underestimates the count of results, then it can be not a lie. Personally, I’ve not seen one in the past 22+ years. Do you have different experience?
777.
by ruszki 5y ago
So it's not possible to insult or threaten somebody - or in this case a child - during a speech according to you. You need to say this explicitly, because people usually think otherwise. Do I need to send you a random Trump speech to p
778.
by ruszki 5y ago
> speech can not cause brain damage https://www.verywellmind.com/childhood-abuse-changes-the-bra... This states clearly otherwise.
779.
by ruszki 5y ago
> The sole exceptions probably being speech that inspires imminent action to violate any person's individual rights (e.g. violence) or that has an imminent or fundamental threat to bring about a change in government to one which doe
780.
by ruszki 5y ago
I don't think that national interests really mattered anytime in any country. That is just a tool to keep power. Maybe it's important for some politician, but focusing on power grab is way more beneficial at the top.

More ›