tines

27 ms·

451.
by tines 2y ago
What about after he has left office?
452.
by tines 2y ago
Says who? You can't ask me why I did it, according to the ruling. I could have had a good reason. And you can't use my private records, nor those of my assistants, either.
453.
by tines 2y ago
Those are examples of the president not breaking the law. She was saying that presidents now have carte blanche to do those things with no fear of prosecution.
454.
by tines 2y ago
That's a false dichotomy, just allow the motivation for official acts to be taken into consideration for prosecution, and a lot of the problems go away.
455.
by tines 2y ago
I don't think this is true. The constitution was designed with the idea of preventing a king from coming to power. The whole separation of powers thing presumes that an individual is bad, but groups are less bad.
456.
by tines 2y ago
> I'm not sure what your standard of brazen is Ordering the assassination of an American citizen not caught in the act of doing something illegal is illegal and Obama should be prosecuted for that. But his justification was that it
457.
by tines 2y ago
> why would they need legal immunity? Because there's a gap between here and there, and we don't want to make that gap narrower than it already is. The president can now do a whole lot of illegal shit that falls short of "
458.
by tines 2y ago
> One of the key things about a dissent, is that it's not the opinion of the court, but just that judge. Can you find anything in the opinion of the court that would preclude it? I can't. > In general, one would hope Seal Te
459.
by tines 2y ago
That's a tortuous use of the word unlimited. The president has very limited power that is spelled out by the constitution and proscribed by Congress. Using that limited power in the way it is permitted is not "unlimitedly using li
460.
by tines 2y ago
> If he commits murder... that's not an official act. Not true, it depends on how he does it. If he hacks someone to death with a sword, that's not an official act, and it doesn't matter why he does it. But if he orders Se
461.
by tines 2y ago
In modern times, the pound is defined in terms of kilograms, so it's a unit of mass.
462.
by tines 2y ago
> massive pound of flesh Technically, all pounds of flesh are the same mass :)
463.
by tines 2y ago
That's only the case when you turn on the "enable arbitrary computation in typeclasses" flag, so I'd say it's not much of a worry.
464.
by tines 2y ago
That post, while awesome (as is the rest of aphyr's stuff), is a lot to wade through to get to the point you're trying to convey. Can you spell it out for me?
465.
by tines 2y ago
Is it that Haskell, at least, doesn't support overloading in the same way as Swift? I don't know either of them well enough to be sure. It seems like there's a combinatorial explosion of possible overloads in Swift, whereas i
466.
by tines 2y ago
If this guy was yelling fire then so are we all.
467.
by tines 2y ago
"Lunar gravity" is the effect of innumerable individual particles exerting a gravitational force, so that's not really macro.
468.
by tines 2y ago
And the ACLU "supported" the Nazi movement in Skokie. Do you have any evidence that Chomsky himself denies the holocaust, or are you just slinging shit?
469.
by tines 2y ago
I think I see what tripped you up in my comment. I said > if it costs me nothing, then the love it represents is nothing. You could read this as meaning that every action has to be super costly or else the love isn't there. I admit
470.
by tines 2y ago
Actually you prove my point; the psycho loves himself so much that he will risk prison to get what he wants (or keep others from having it), but he doesn't love his SO enough to pay the cost of letting her go.
471.
by tines 2y ago
> those things are making YOU feel better not the person receiving it I don't think this is true at all. Love is proportional to cost; if it costs me nothing, then the love it represents is nothing. When we receive something from so
472.
by tines 2y ago
I just bought a license for BTT after having used it for a week or so. It's absolutely amazing. Thank you for making this awesome tool.
473.
by tines 2y ago
No, his is a second-order statement that applies to first-order statements. It's not intended to apply to second-order statements.
474.
by tines 2y ago
I've been thinking lately about whether mathematics "is" reality or whether mathematics merely represents reality, and something that I've noticed is that mathematicians and physicists seem to hold the philosophy that if
475.
by tines 2y ago
It makes sense to do so in the same way that it’s useful to distinguish quantum mechanics from classical mechanics, even if they make the same predictions sometimes.
476.
by tines 2y ago
Read again; I said he’s arguing that the LLM (i.e. thermometer in your example) is the thing that can’t be true or false. Its utterances (the readings of your thermometer) can be. This would be unlike a human, who can be right or wrong inde
477.
by tines 2y ago
Not really. It distinguishes LLM output from human output even though they look the same sometimes. The process by which something comes into existence is a valid distinction to make, even if the two processes happen to produce the same thi
478.
by tines 2y ago
The words in the book are true or false, making the author correct or incorrect. The question being posed is whether the output of an LLM has an "author," since it's not authored by a single human in the traditional sense. If
479.
by tines 2y ago
> Any reply will always sound like someone is disagreeing, even if they claim not to. Disagree! :) > Though in this case I'm not even sure what the comment they're supposedly disagreeing with is even claiming. Is it even cla
480.
by tines 2y ago
> The real question is what I, the human, get out of reading those words So then you agree with the OP that an LLM is not intelligent in the same way that Google Maps is not intelligent? That seems to be where your argument leads but you

More ›