saghm

25 ms·

511.
by saghm 3mo ago
I don't understand what's hard to understand. Regulation that affects people and devices that have no risk of being used for the purported thing that's supposed to be protected against is not well-scoped.
512.
by saghm 3mo ago
That's exactly my point; websites that already have absolutely no threat from having kids access them are literally unavailable due to the operating system put up a block that isn't necessary due to a hypothetical kid using the de
513.
by saghm 3mo ago
You don't need to show your ID to go into the store and buy something else though, so why would this provide any sort of precedent for "you can't use the internet for literally anything on this device without proving your age
514.
by saghm 3mo ago
I strongly disagree. There are no kids in my household, and no one else ever uses my devices, so the idea that I need to prove that I'm not a kid for me to be able to pay bills or file taxes on a stock device is ridiculous.
515.
by saghm 3mo ago
I guess that depends on your definition of "hold"? The entire concept of short-selling requires that you're selling the shares from from someone who would presumably not otherwise be selling given that they're stipulatin
516.
by saghm 3mo ago
> Stealing from the one company that has managed to court success makes a lot of sense. It makes a lot of sense to get into a massive legal battle with one of the most deep-pocketed companies on the planet?
517.
by saghm 3mo ago
The should pass a law saying they should have to pay you the amount over the correct bill as compensation; I bet they'll stop making mistakes like this pretty quickly after that
518.
by saghm 3mo ago
Looks like the site was taken down. I was curious who wrote the most like me, given that I don't have any alt accounts, but I guess weighing privacy over my curiosity is a good thing in the big picture
519.
by saghm 3mo ago
"We're smart enough to safely use these languages but you're not" is a bold claim that just happens to end up with the exact same consequences of their earlier rule that was deemed anticompetitive, there's no cons
520.
by saghm 3mo ago
> But when you're trying to explain that the Anthropic models are called "Opus" or "Sonnet" or "Haiku" or "Fable", but you use them in "Claude", it gets confusing quickly. "Why
521.
by saghm 3mo ago
I mean, he's not wrong! As long as you use lowercase letters for "open", of course
522.
by saghm 3mo ago
I mentioned this thread to my wife, and she told me that I was the only person she had ever heard mention the name "OpenAI", and she wouldn't have any clue who they were if she saw their name somewhere if I hadn't told h
523.
by saghm 3mo ago
No, they said that in Australia words are made up. I'm not disagreeing, but I'm saying that it's not specific to Australia! Tangentially, it's funny to me that you happen to use "spelt" here; I've always f
524.
by saghm 3mo ago
I don't think you're wrong, but I also don't think that keeping phones from kids will really make a huge impact. I have trouble imagining that the same parents who are (according to this framing) using phones as an excuse not
525.
by saghm 3mo ago
Is that data from kids who drank without adult supervision? It's hard to tell without more context if you're proving or disproving the point that's been made, which is that maybe learning how to drink responsibly with parents
526.
by saghm 3mo ago
All words are made up
527.
by saghm 3mo ago
It seems pretty dubious that there are a lot of people who know the name of the company behind ChatGPT but not able to recognize that the name of their chat isn't "OpenAI chat"
528.
by saghm 3mo ago
The nouns also aren't just generic terms for the type of products they're making. OpenApple wouldn't sound confusing in the same way for a laptop and phone manufacturer as it would for a company producing apples in a non-open
529.
by saghm 3mo ago
Sure, that's fair. I'm just saying that I probably would read a dumb solicitation email from someone who gave me, like, $10,000, but in practice that will be almost nobody, so either way I'd win!
530.
by saghm 3mo ago
In addition to the points that sibling comments have made about how you're not quite right with the exact semantics of for loops (which also take ownership via `into_iter` and therefore are a bit different from `while let`), it's
531.
by saghm 3mo ago
You'll never guess number 6! Seriously, why would you think that 6 is one of them, there are so many better numbers out there
532.
by saghm 3mo ago
I don't necessarily disagree, but that seems like literally the opposite of the objection that I was actually responding to. My point wasn't that this idea is infallible, but that I thought there was a flaw in the logic of the one
533.
by saghm 3mo ago
I imagine the point is that if you make the price high enough, the ones who don't want it enough will go away, and the ones that do will want it enough that it's worth your while. You can set the price to whatever threshold is hig
534.
by saghm 3mo ago
"If you can afford it" also conveniently glosses over the fact that a private insurance system means that the costs for paying out of pocket tend to be insanely high, since that an insurance company pays the hospital is basically
535.
by saghm 3mo ago
> Your healthcare insurance being dependent on your employer seems like hell though. They will always have enormous bargaining power over you and I think it also leads to chilling effect, when your health is literally dependent on your j
536.
by saghm 3mo ago
And the real monster was the one who created it all along!
537.
by saghm 3mo ago
Oh no, what happens when I flush my agents from one hemisphere down the toilet in the other then?
538.
by saghm 3mo ago
> But if you never mention that url, it will not be found if not leaked by your server That sounds like a claim that security through obscurity is infallible, which is dubious. Don't get me wrong, it can be a reasonable part of defe
539.
by saghm 3mo ago
Yeah, I thought it was pretty obvious that is literally the whole reason that Gmail even exists
540.
by saghm 3mo ago
Not if you're perfectly able to differentiate which things will eventually succeed rather than will always fail! The best strategy for "winning in the age of AI" is "be able to predict the future with perfect accuracy&qu

More ›