logicbomb

I suspect that China knows that they can say whatever they want, and that they can do whatever they want, and that those two things have nothing to do with each other.

Saying they support humanitarian rights makes them look good.

They can sign any agreement or treaty or whatever. If it says human rights must be respected, well, that's just ink on paper. It's not like it's going to change what they do in the least.

It's more surprising that the US voted against this. Maybe it means the US ambassador to the UN is somewhat working against Trump to make him look like an amateur. Maybe it means that Trump weighed in on this directly, and this happened because he really is just that stupid.

Didn't you hear how many wars he ended? There was the, uhhh, Albania-Azerbaijan war, the uhh, Israel-Palestine war that he completely ended moments before they started a new completely different war. Also Robot Wars and Storage Wars. And many others behind the scenes, so that from the outside, he seems to have done nothing at all.

Actually, hearing about this, I'm now surprised that our military didn't stop the fishing boats first to siphon all of the gasoline out of their tanks before blowing them up and murdering their crew.

It was carrying drugs?

This type of drug has several street names, among them, black gold and Texas tea.

It sounds to me like she was sexually harassing him.

I am not bi, but I wonder if bisexual people didn't get the worst name for their sexuality. Because I suspect that most of them simply don't care about the other person's gender. I think they're attracted to the person themselves, regardless of gender. And now that people accept that there are more than two genders, the "bi" in "bisexual", meaning "two" seems overly specific.

But anyways, back to the example at hand, assuming that his type of "bi" means that he cares about other stuff more than gender, it's hard to imagine a worse way to come onto him than to do what that lady did. "I have a terrible personality, now let's see that hard dick."

I even think the headline is a little offensive, acting as if ceding land is even an option. They ceded land to Russia a decade ago and they're still getting attacked. WW2 should have taught us that you can't appease guys like Putin and Hitler.

It's more like the ancient phenomenon of spaghetti code. You can throw enough code at something until it works, but the moment you need to make a non-trivial change, you're doomed. You might as well throw away the entire code base and start over.

And if you want an exact parallel, I've said this from the beginning, but LLM coding at this point is the same as offshore coding was 20 years ago. You make a request, get a product that seems to work, but maintaining it, even by the same people who created it in the first place, is almost impossible.

Donald Trump is an even stupider man that I thought if he thinks history will remember him kindly. All he can do with the small remainder of his natural lifespan is pave the way for the next narcissistic authoritarian dictator to come to power, and that person won't want Trump's name all over shit.

Whether Trump succeeds in killing American democracy, or whether American democracy somehow survives, Trump's legacy will be cast as dog shit. The next dictator would want to blame Trump for everything wrong, while a resurgence of democracy would simply be able to tell the truth.

Literally the only way Trump has any chance of looking good is if one of his children succeeds him. I don't think that is very likely, but I've been wrong before.

For me, the important thing is that this is a vibrant community.

That means that from the mods' perspectives, they don't get too loaded down with moderation work, or need to defend themselves and create friction with the community.

It also means that when people want to contribute to the community, they're not afraid of what the mods will say. If they post without reading the rules, like probably most people do, it's really the poster's fault. But if they are afraid to post even after reading the rules, then I think that has a freezing effect on the community.

As for people who are looking for loopholes, I think they're trying to make the mods' lives harder, and so I don't really think they're worth worrying too much about. They'll probably get banned sooner or later because that is the attitude of a troll.

Just my opinion. I've never been a mod, and I don't think I could handle that responsibility. I just try to be empathetic with everybody involved.

You're right. One problem is, even though mods already have the power, specifically saying in the rules that the criteria is subjective sounds like something that a mod would make when they are tired of having to explain their moderation choices.

They can just say that it was low-effort, and problem solved. They don't need to explain themselves, right?

But when the rules are vague, I think they'll end up with more complaints from people who have different criteria of low-effort from the mods. This sort of interaction leads to accusations of mods power-tripping.

If the mods can nail down exactly what is low-effort, like, "X will always get removed. Z will never get removed unless it violates other rules. Y may be at risk of the moderator's mood. You have been warned." If they nail things down a bit more, then they will probably make things easier for themselves in the long-run than just keeping things vague.

Plus, if the rules are not vague, then people can discuss them safely when the rules are changed. When rules are vague, people will simply be upset that moderation was sprung on them, and everything will be discussed while people are upset. My belief is that people best discuss things while calm, and not while experiencing one person having power over another.

When I took my AI coursework in college, that was basically the definition of AI.

I can see that there are two very different definitions, depending upon how "artificial" is interpreted.

One definition of artificial simply describes the product of human effort. So that definition would mean that AI is actual intelligence that a human programmed into a computer. Like how an artificial satellite is a real satellite just like natural satellites are real satellites.

Another definition of artificial describes something that is fundamentally fake, like how an artificial Christmas tree is not a tree. It only looks like a tree. This is the usage I was taught in college that describes AI. Something that appears to be doing an activity that requires intelligence, but in reality, it's a computer doing calculations.

I think the second definition must be the most common. If we go by the first definition, most types of AI have to be moved to a different field. Things like decision trees simply wouldn't qualify.

He's a Nazi who is building AI Hitler.