blind3rdeye

It’s crazy how you missed that point yet harp about intelligence.

I'm not sure why you said that. The person you are responding didn't 'miss that point'. They were themselves pointing out that other people have missed it. You are both criticising people for missing the same point.

I'd rather download a bear than download a strange man, that's for sure.

I honestly don't have a strong sense of how Tate can be so popular. But if I had to guess, I'd say the "no sense of community" is probably the biggest thing.

The internet has become a gathering place where communities and social bonds are formed. I can imagine a heap of people who are struggling socially in the real world seeing, and then seeing Tate and his community offer an 'answer' to that - supporting those who feel rejected, and putting the blame squarely on others. That's what I see as the draw that brings people in. They feel safe and secure in their haven of hatred. Any opposition to them is from people that are weaker and less important. -- Which then makes leaving the group almost impossible, because you'd have to degrade your own view of yourself - joining the people who you think are weaker and less important.

So this Tate thing is rot that has taken root because of a gap in more healthy support structures. (I don't see an easy solution for it though!)

The full list: https://code.gouv.fr/sill/list

Hold on. That page does not list VLC or KeePass. Is there more info about this other than the list? Or is the info in the title of this post incorrect?

[edit]

I see now. The page does not list VLC or KeePass, but those two both do come up if you put them into the search box. The software listed on the page is a very long list, but it is apparently on the 'most popular' stuff - not the entire list. (Although it is strange to see a heap of niche stuff, and stuff I've never heard of on the 'most popular' list while VLC doesn't make the cut.)

I'm not sure this list is a very strong endorsement by the French Government. It seems to just be listing free software options, and then asking other people to sign up to say which ones they use.

It does kind of feel like the UN could use a refresh. In particular, the veto powers given to certain countries feels bad. There may be good reasons for that system, but the system is not good - and the details of the reasons have definitely shifted over time such that the choice of countries with veto power is now highly questionable.

My point was that "lose money on every prompt" would be true in a technical sense regardless of how much people were paying for a subscription. The subscription money is money in, and the cost of calculations is money out. It's still money out regardless of what is coming in.

As for whether the business is profitable or not, it's not so easy to tell unless you're an insider. Companies like this basically never make a 'profit' on paper, but that doesn't mean they aren't enriching themselves. They are counting their own pay as part of the costs, and they set their pay to whatever they like. They are also counting various research and expansion efforts as part of the cost. So yeah, they might not have any excess money to pay dividends to shareholders, but that doesn't mean they aren't profitable.

People don't usually interact with a hammer by talking to it. They interact by holding it, placing it, hammering with it. Respect for a hammer (or similar tool) would be based around those kinds of actions.

Whereas people do interact with a chatbot by talking to it. So then respect for a chatbot would be built around what is said.

People can show respect for a hammer, a house, a dinner prepared by their spouse, their spouse, a chatbot, etc.. but respect for each of those things will look a bit different.

Well sure, answering the queries continues to cost the company money regardless of what subscription the user has. The company would definitely make more money if the users paid for subscription and then made zero queries.

Have you read A City On Mars? It has quite a detailed look at many of the challenges. You've pointed to some research relevant to the possible availability of water - which is great, but I think it would be better to say "a major constraint" rather than "the major constraint."

I don't know what you mean by favouritism. The reasoning for the phone ban goes something like this:

1. Teachers and education researchers have agreed that children are less productive in school due to mobile phones.
2. But preventing children from using their phones in school creates significant additional workload, due to conflicts and arguments.
3. Various governments have recognised this, and have created a law which can remove the phones without the workload.

If you're talking again about the fact that teachers are allowed phones but students are not, then I'm disappointed. I've put in quite a bit of good faith effort into talking about this stuff. At the start of our conversation I felt that I was answering genuine questions, and perhaps helping clarify why someone might want a law like this. But now I'm starting to feel like that was entirely wasted, because you never wanted to think about it anyway - you only wanted to fight it. That's how I'm starting to feel. Maybe I'm wrong, but this 'how does the law prevent favoritism' seems like a totally bullshit line to reasoning to me.

Different laws and rules target different groups of people for different reasons. There's a huge list of rules and responsibilities that apply exclusively to teachers and not other professions. And there's a heap of rules that apply to children and not adults. There can be different rules for different reasons. As for phone usage, I'd personally be totally fine if all smart phones were phased out for everyone for all purposes across the entire world. But I do think it's a false equivalence to say that if phones are banned for students they should also be banned for everyone else. It a totally separate argument. And note: I'm not introducing this law. I didn't ask for it. I didn't design it. I don't even live in the country that the article is from. I'm only try to outline what I understand to be the motivation. If you think something negative is going to result from this law, you should try to outline what that is. What-aboutisms are not helpful.

The primary purpose of making it a government policy is to defuse the endless arguments and pushback that schools were fighting to stop students using phones.

If the rule is a case-by-case thing implemented by individual classroom teachers, it doesn't work at all - because students will quickly see and exploit differences in how the rule is enforced by different teachers. It means the phones still get used, and any attempt to remove that distraction becomes a massive battle of "why are you targeting me. That other student is allowed to use theirs. The other teachers don't mind." etc etc.

Having a clear school-wide policy mostly fixes that; but it still gets a very similar effect from the parents. "I give my child permission, because they need it for such-and-such reason". It can be dealt with, but it is genuinely a large burden on the school. But having a clear government policy removes that battle for the school. The answer is always clear "it's a government policy, it is not our decision to make". (By the way, there are still some exemptions for medial reasons; but again, there are no case-by-case arguments, because the policy is the same for all schools.)

So in short its about consistency; to reduce conflict between teachers and students, and between schools and parents.

To avoid any risk of legal liability the school rule becomes "do not bring a mobile phone to school", similar to the advice that schools give about valuables in general - especially on sport days. Bring at your own risk. This is especially true when it is a government policy - i.e. not the school's decision.

Note, this article is talking about France. But as has been pointed out, France is not the first country to do this. I live in Australia, and my comments are based on the phone bans here which have been in place here for a few years (I think the state of Victoria was first, and all states have seen one-by-one followed that example because they see it as a good idea.)

The discussion about whether or not teachers should have smart phones is a separate issue. It has a totally different pros and cons, benefits and challenges.