tempfile

9 ms·

151.
by tempfile 4mo ago
Almost everyone in almost all contexts agrees on what matter is, though. I can't think of any conversation about material objects I've ever had where "is this matter?" was ever up for consideration. Consciousness is almo
152.
by tempfile 4mo ago
When I said "If you have standards" I did not specify what those standards are. So I said "probably", because I have to guess you have similar standards to me. If you do, then you can drop the "probably". As th
153.
by tempfile 4mo ago
"war industry" is still very charitable! If you have any standards that distinguish a war from indiscriminate killing, they probably violate those standards in a large proportion of their business.
154.
by tempfile 10mo ago
But that suggests that if AI were to displace all programming ever, then as long as there were still some jobs, you would still consider that "AI is not replacing workers". Does that not stretch the meaning of "not replacin
155.
by tempfile 10mo ago
> Automation alone did never reduce jobs significantly. Unless you mean "all jobs across the entire economy", this is pretty obviously false. People used to weave fabrics by hand, make screws and nails by hand, bake bread by ha
156.
by tempfile 10mo ago
Don't people give pretty much exactly this argument about all taxes?
157.
The Plan Is to Make the Internet Worse. Forever [video](youtube.com)
2 points by tempfile 10mo ago|0 comments
158.
by tempfile 10mo ago
It was the whole "Yes! 100%, totally agree" thing. I think you were just doing a rhetorical device, sorry. > why don't we also have laws criminalizing things like refusing to be friends with $SKIN_COLOR people? Some combin
159.
by tempfile 10mo ago
> "I will give you food, on the condition that you change your immutable characteristics" is incoherent. This is a very strange failure of reading comprehension. I think you're trying to write "I will only give you fo
160.
by tempfile 10mo ago
Yes, it does. That's why job offers that state "do not apply if you're a woman" are illegal. You just don't care about this particular harm.
161.
by tempfile 10mo ago
I am not confused :-) Of course I can say that. I can say "you can't come into my house if you're black" too. The point is that it's unethical. It would be unethical for me to search your phone before you entered
162.
by tempfile 10mo ago
Because the thing we're arguing about is whether it's ethical to apply certain preconditions to entering the US. What's unclear about that?
163.
by tempfile 10mo ago
Not all free market transactions are reasonable. Selling yourself into slavery is a "free market transaction" I hope you would not consider legitimate.
164.
by tempfile 10mo ago
No, it isn't. For example, I do not have an obligation to let people into my house. I can choose to let them in or decline them entry. But there are certain preconditions I cannot apply. I cannot, for example, say "you may come in
165.
by tempfile 10mo ago
This argument is absurd. If someone comes up to me and asks for food, I am not obliged to give it to them. If I say to them, "I will give you food, on the condition that I can punch you in the face", and they decline to be punched
166.
by tempfile 10mo ago
> Foreign countries have no obligation to admit you within their borders. That doesn't sound relevant. Nobody said that they were obliged to admit you, they complained that the reasons for declining admittance were unfair. Unless yo
167.
by tempfile 10mo ago
Lol. If you ballpark numbers like that probably anything is doable!
168.
by tempfile 10mo ago
What does October 7th (is that what you mean?) have to do with DEI?
169.
by tempfile 10mo ago
I have never in my life met a person who hallucinates in the way ChatGPT etc do. If I did, I would probably assume they were deliberately lying, or very unwell.
170.
by tempfile 10mo ago
> Did you make this [opinion] up? Yes! That is how they work.
171.
by tempfile 10mo ago
Fox News just lies. They aren't "hallucinating".
172.
by tempfile 10mo ago
Is this really common behaviour? I do not recognise it. Do people lie? Certainly yes. Do people misremember, or get details incorrect? Yes. But when was the last time you saw someone, say, fabricate an entire citation in a paper? People mak
173.
by tempfile 10mo ago
I think the evidence is actually pretty strongly against them doing anything similar to "thinking". Certainly they are exhibiting some behaviour that we have traditionally only associated with thinking. But this comes along with l
174.
by tempfile 11mo ago
This is a very silly argument. The energy expended should be justified on its own (scientific!) merits. The fact the web happened to be invented at CERN has almost nothing to do with the fact that they burn through terajoules of electricity
175.
by tempfile 11mo ago
It is really not any harder to define than "freely". Presumably by "what I signed up for freely" you mean "what I signed up for without any coercion, threat of violence, etc". The people using "exploitatio
176.
by tempfile 11mo ago
How did that turn into "not great, not terrible"? That's still 300,000 homes that could otherwise be powered. It's an enormous amount of electricity!
177.
by tempfile 11mo ago
That's appalling. "Yo let me squirt you"
178.
by tempfile 11mo ago
It is in the "Early life" section.
179.
by tempfile 11mo ago
Built it into the protocol that you must provide bandwidth in order to have your requests served. A bit like forcing people to seed torrents.
180.
by tempfile 11mo ago
> isn't it much faster No. Radioactive materials decay at the same rate no matter what you do to them. > the effects of the uranium is largely mitigated Very different from decaying faster. It's possible that by covering i

More ›