DenpaEnthusiast
No bio...
User ID: 131
DenpaEnthusiast
25d ago
I don't know if this counts as "tactful", but I got my boss to stop doing that by repeatedly pointing out errors in the LLM's output. After a few months, he got tired of being told that whatever source file it was talking about didn't exist, and now he only posts LLM output after verifying it, which is much less annoying.
DenpaEnthusiast
1mo ago
My college course on formal logic used Language, Proof and Logic, which I liked. The physical version came with software that would check your proofs, so you could write things like
- A
- A->B
- Modus Ponens on steps 1 and 2
And it would automatically fill in step 3 with B, which was a nice way of constructing my proofs so they were actually correct.
DenpaEnthusiast
2mo ago
What I meant for option 2 was pay it back yourself instead of getting the money from the customer. While it is true that banks will pay overdrafts initially, the customer is still ultimately on the hook for the money. The bank doesn't say "we paid that for you, don't worry about it". They say "we paid that for you as a loan, now you need to give us the money we sent". Which is option 3.
DenpaEnthusiast
2mo ago
Because of chargebacks. If Alice steals Bob's payment info and sends money to Carol, when Bob notices this he's going to request the money back. If you are Carol's bank, your options are:
- Refuse. This gets you blacklisted from other banks, and your customers can't receive money.
- Pay it back yourself. This means charging significant fees as fraud insurance, while also allowing criminals to keep their fraudulent gains.
- Request the money back from Carol. This is equivalent to offering her credit.
- Hold the money until the chargeback can't be requested. This takes multiple months, and most merchants do not want to (or can't afford to) wait that long before actually getting their money.
DenpaEnthusiast
2mo ago
If you put the sentence "Ohio law states that you may not loiter less than three get away from a pubic building." into Google docs, it will correct "get" to "feet", and "pubic" to "public". This has been the case for around 15 years.
DenpaEnthusiast
3mo ago
He probably means cheering. The Japanese message uses the loanword "live", which refers to special events like concerts, not regular live streams. You support concerts by showing up and cheering or clapping, and she's describing her birthday stream as a "horror live", so he's probably intending to watch the whole stream and spam emoji in chat whenever something noteworthy happens. This is pretty common behavior for concerts on YouTube.
DenpaEnthusiast
3mo ago
Consider the following analogy. We're planning to go out to eat. You suggest a restaurant, but I say I don't want to eat there. You suggest a second restaurant, I also didn't want to eat there. You suggest a third, I shoot it down again. At some point, it's reasonable to demand that I either stop declining your suggestions, or provide some of my own.
This is where Freddie is with wokeness. He says "woke", they say that's not good label. He says "identity politics", they reject that too. He says "CRT", that's also not accurate. The article isn't an isolated demand that they label themselves, it comes after his attempts to label them have been rejected.
This is actually worse because the woke are not a monolithic entity. If they had a clear leader, they could be reasoned and negotiated with. But because they're diffuse with no set leadership, woke group A is under no obligation to respect any deals made with woke group B, and there's no incentive to come to any sort of consensus. They won't be punished for defying their boss.
DenpaEnthusiast
3mo ago
Stardew Valley did not invent a genre. Most of its mechanics are from the Harvest Moon/Story of Seasons series, which started in 1996.
DenpaEnthusiast
4mo ago
That's not the same thing. In Star Trek, they were simulating battles without actually destroying their opponent's means of fighting. If you have two drone armies fight each other, the loser still gets destroyed. In Star Trek, if one side defected, the other side would have to send their ships in, and possibly sustain the losses they avoided by only stimulating the flight. In drone warfare, you've already sent your drones in and fought their drone army, so if they defect you can slaughter them. If drones are that much better than humans at fighting, they won't be able to defend themselves, because you didn't just simulate it, you actually destroyed their drones.
DenpaEnthusiast
4mo ago
DenpaEnthusiast
6mo ago
Maybe he was confused about what the "scales of justice" were.
DenpaEnthusiast
8mo ago
Why is living in the woods a valid way to opt out, but killing yourself isn't?
DenpaEnthusiast
9mo ago
MinGW and MSVC capitalize their header names differently, so it's possible they were correct for the person who wrote them.
DenpaEnthusiast
11mo ago
DenpaEnthusiast
11mo ago
My family tried to convince me she could still hear and understand
My family did this too. On the one hand, I want to argue back; a month ago she could barely hear us when she was directly looking at us and had a hearing aid, do you really think it's better now that her eyes don't open and there's an oxygen machine running constantly? On the other hand, that will just make my mother sadder and not actually help anything.
Either way, you have my condolences.
DenpaEnthusiast
11mo ago
DenpaEnthusiast
1yr ago
Not him, but I did basically the same thing you did, except I was less physically active, for about 15 months. The hunger pangs got less severe after a month or so, but never fully went away, and the cognitive problems (lack of focus, slower reasoning, less ability to subconsciously understand references) started half a week in and didn't stop until I started gaining the weight back.
DenpaEnthusiast
1yr ago
You have neglected to mention option 3: avoidance. Instead of requiring people to change either their clothes or their opinion, just give people the option to not work with people who make them unavoidably afraid or aroused.
DenpaEnthusiast
1yr ago
linux has EBPF
DenpaEnthusiast
1yr ago
That's not what the lawsuit alleged. It said that hosts were allowed to make claims that executives believed were false, and that guests were brought on and made claims that the hosts believed were false. I don't think there were any claims that were (provably) disbelieved by the person who made them. The argument was that executives/hosts had enough control over the claims of hosts/guests that allowing those claims to be made was tantamount to making them directly.
But in this case that means the podcast itself would be analogous to Fox executives/hosts, and the motte members would be the hosts/guests, so it's not a direct example.
DenpaEnthusiast
1yr ago
Fox news was sued and lost almost $800 million.
DenpaEnthusiast
1yr ago
This complaint only makes sense if you think of words as having intrinsic or "correct" meanings. If you instead treat words as just vehicles for conveying ideas, then you could just answer "who in the world could we call a racist, then?" with "nobody, using it to describe people is pointless because it doesn't mean anything". And I think that's a reasonable answer if you're not going around calling people racist. If the word "racist" doesn't have to mean anything, then you can just not use it if you think it wouldn't help people understand the idea you're trying to convey.
It’s fundamentally my job to understand what they mean
No it isn't. It's the speaker's job to convey their idea in an easy-to-understand fashion. If there was an argument on this site where people were conflating the philosophical concept of free speech with the first amendment, then when I make a post in next week's thread about the philosophical concept it's my responsibility to clearly indicate that I'm not talking about the first amendment. If there were posts saying that the concept of "free speech" is incoherent and meaningless, then it's contingent on me to specify what exactly I mean by free speech. If enough people are confused, then it's probably better for me to not use the phrase "free speech" at all, and replace it with something like "the right to not be punished for conveying my opinion about the election".
So to answer your object-level question, you could (and should) directly say that you think "BAP has an unconscious bias against black people, regardless of their individual intelligence or behavior". If you want to know how a poster compares with the average 1995 American, you could ask "Do you think the average American in 1995 would agree with that statement? Do you agree with that statement?". You don't have to specifically use the word "racist", especially when you know it won't help people understand your point.
DenpaEnthusiast
1yr ago
Determining whether a couple is infertile in general is much harder than determining whether a couple is gay. It is entirely reasonable for the state to not want any marriages which do not produce children, but to allow the ones that it can't trivially detect.
I am skeptical of this paper's conclusions. For one, working memory and reasoning skills were twice as relevant as language skills, yet the paper focuses on language skills. Second, the paper contains sentences like "Critically, the existing research provides inconsistent evidence about the relevance of mathematical skills for learning to program" and "At the moment, the way in which programming is taught and learned is fundamentally broken", but the way they checked for mathematical skills was the Abbreviated Numeracy Scale, which is full of questions about specific numbers, like "A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?". The math skills that are relevant to programming are about symbol manipulation, not numerical calculations. I would be a little surprised if essay-writing skill was a better predictor than probability-calculating skill was, but I would be very surprised if essay-writing was better than graph theory or logic. Third, numeracy was more correlated (albeit barely) than language with writing correct programs, which I would argue is more important than the other two categories (learning speed and the ability to answer quiz questions).
I doubt the study's claim that it "begins to paint a picture of what a good programmer actually looks like". To me it looks like the prose is motivated reasoning trying to obscure the actual data they collected, and the data they didn't collect but should have.
More options
Context Copy link