Jiro
1yr ago
Isn't that mostly a result of it being kinda difficult to reach through the screen and throttle the other person?
Yes, that's the point. "There are more bans for X than for Y" doesn't imply that Y is being treated more leniently.
Jiro
1yr ago
That's a bad summary because it doesn't account for how frequent the things are. We haven't banned anyone for murdering their opponent even though that's a worse offense than either low effort or LLMs.
(And the proper comparison isn't LLMs specifically. You ban relatively fewer people for long grammatical, low information posts than you do for standard low effort posts. This creates incentives for long, grammatical, low information posts.)
Jiro
1yr ago
If in Nazi Germany or the USSR, is it a basic civic norm to stand for the national anthem?
This is a good place for the "is it okay to shoot them" criterion. If it's okay to shoot them (regardless of whether it's safe to shoot them), it's also okay to do a whole bunch of other things you normally shouldn't be doing. If it isn't okay to shoot them, then follow the norms.
Jiro
1yr ago
People's revealed preference is not to have any, or few.
I have trouble using "revealed preference" to describe a situation where someone's actions are different from what they would do if they believed X and completely understood it, and the gap between their action and belief is related mainly to that lack of understanding. For instance, people who fall for scams haven't shown a revealed preference for losing money. That's not what the phrase is supposed to mean.
Jiro
1yr ago
even the authors of the original paper from where this statement comes from don't agree with it
Do you have a reference for this?
Jiro
1yr ago
I'd say that's a good idea, and what should have been done, but these days what will happen is that someone will copy paste lecture transcripts into an LLM and have it find the error and explain it lol. I suppose that does still deserve points for diligence.
Or the more traditional pre-Internet failure mode: the student knows better than the teacher, finds "intentional" errors that are unintentional and just the teacher not knowing better, and gets punished for it.
Then they could say "sure, we condemn them."
"We don't agree with its agenda or tactics, but we won't condemn them" means "we agree with its agenda and tactics, by revealed preference".
They think it misses the point.
It doesn't miss the point, because the point is not to get the Palestinians to talk about what's most important to themselves. It's like having a Nazi who really likes his stamp collection, but thinks "sure, all Jews should die". It doesn't "miss the point" to focus on the thing which is less important to him rather than the thing which is more important to him. It's less important to him, but it's more important to the Jews.
Jiro
1yr ago
In your scenario, the US isn't being capitalist in the name of fighting Nazis.
There's a difference between "doing X in order to do Y" and "doing X while doing Y". Capitalists fighting Nazis is the latter; Hamas is the former.
Jiro
1yr ago
Is there a good book with cyberpunk aesthetics, but where the corporate are protagonists and heroes?
This is sometimes referred to as "post-cyberpunk". Where the technology of cyberpunk is a thing, but the characters aren't rebels against it because technloogy can be good.
It seems to happen every time for me. The test comments below at level 10 all had the problem. It happens either from the main thread or from using "context" and replying from there.
I am using Firefox under Linux if that helps. Chromium under Linux also does it.
Whatever that is, how does that matter more than I think?
More options
Context Copy link