How bad can it be, it's not like we're sharing state secrets
tias
joined 2 years ago
When a news headline ends with a question mark, the answer is no.
Practicing loving-kindness meditation and trying to find an interest in the lives of others. When you feel a genuine interest in learning about the lives of the people you meet and are not worrying about your own self-image, people are less scary and easier to talk to.
I used to be afraid of people thinking less of me for asking stupid questions, but now I don't care so much about what they think about me. I come from a mindset of compassion rather than fear. It turns out that people generally prefer dumb but interested over insecurity.
Well if it was a human it wouldn't be a peer, would it
That's the drawback when "everything's computer" in a Tesler
Someone made millions off of that Xeet.
I prefer to call them Xcrements
If the safeguards can be so easily removed, what's the point of putting them there in the first place
Sure, as long as it works. Software has a tendency to stop working on newer OS:es or become subject to security exploits though.
That sounds good on paper, but the chances that someone else will pick up the ball if they abandon it, even if it's open source, are very slim. If you care about keeping it alive then paying them is a more effective strategy than hoping for random volunteer work by internet strangers.
You, on the other hand, have good chances of being able to learn new tools. So I think the need for this security is exaggerated.
The IntelliJ products are not exactly "buy once" - if you want updated versions you need to keep paying periodically.
Not that I think that's a bad thing necessarily - it doesn't make sense to expect devs to continue working on something year after year when you're not paying them for it.
I use it many times a day for coding and solving technical issues. But I don't recognize what the article talks about at all. There's nothing affective about my conversations, other than the fact that using typical human expression (like "thank you") seems to increase the chances of good responses. Which is not surprising since it better matches the patterns that you want to evoke in the training data.
That said, yeah of course I become "addicted" to it and have a harder time coping without it, because it's part of my workflow just like Google. How well would anybody be able to do things in tech or even life in general without a search engine? ChatGPT is just a refinement of that.
For some reason I find glitching physics in games to be hilarious. This clip from AC4 had me wheezing.