ulyssessword
No bio...
User ID: 308
ulyssessword
5hr ago
See also: Society Is Fixed, Biology Is Mutable from SSC. It's getting to the point that geology is more mutable than society.
ulyssessword
5hr ago
I still find it strange that "immigrants are depressing wages for you, the [Insert Country Here] people" never caught on. Maybe it's too anti-capitalist for the Right, and too nationalist for the Left. "Taking Jobs" is close, but that's a more individualized look at it than I'm thinking.
ulyssessword
10hr ago
There was a recent article in the CBC (I believe), talking about "modern slavery" in Canada's temporary foreign worker program. They interviewed a worker who talked about the poor conditions he was facing in the job, and how it had stayed that way for over a dozen separate trips. The author didn't seem to realize that something was pulling him back to those jobs after he left at the end of each previous term. Or rather, they had the term "slavery" floating around the article, and left the readers to reach their own conclusions.
ulyssessword
2d ago
I like the gameplay direction Naev went more than Endless Sky's. It gives you rechargeable missile and fighter bays, actually-long-distance travel, and severe nerfs to capturing ships and building fleets. Also, fighters can usually dodge heavy laser fire and battleships can largely ignore light weapons, which forces some variety into your builds.
ulyssessword
5d ago
Sounds like a perfect time for “[awkward silence]”.
ulyssessword
5d ago
Sorry, that was the wrong screenshot, and I'm also on desktop. Here's the actual screenshot (but mobile is the same AFAICT):
ulyssessword
5d ago
Is your UI the same as mine? Can you tell if I visited the comment section in that second link in the screenshot?
ulyssessword
5d ago
Feature request: Some way to differentiate between "X comments, and you've seen all of them" and "X comments, and you've seen none of them".
ulyssessword
5d ago
What does that mean? I'm pretty picky, and often do look at Youtube or Instagram, see that there's nothing interesting there, and then close the tabs and go to bed or sit under a tree with a physical book. Maybe I'm a bit odd. If I'm feeling... stressed? I'm not sure what the state is... I'll refresh The Motte or something over and over for a while, and yeah that's dumb, I shouldn't do that. I should probably take a nap at that point.
I'm right there with you, but I don't think it's universal. I feel like I won the lottery of fascinations because the supposedly-addictive (and also useless) content that gets spread around is just boring to me, so I don't get sucked into those holes. It takes zero effort whatsoever on my part.
ulyssessword
5d ago
...but calling this "screens" feels like calling slot machines "levers" or something.
I'd go much, much broader than that. It's like calling slot machines, toasters, forklifts, and home gyms "levers". Sure, they all have the same basic interface, but they're wildly different than each other in every way that matters.
"Screens" covers direct communication with IRL friends, pseudonymous (or real-name-but-it-doesn't-matter) social media like Twitter/Discord, longform content like ebooks/movies/TV/podcasts, shortform content like news articles/memes/alerts, official interactions with the government or other institutions, ads, games, work, etc.
Being on screens all day is probably worse than pulling levers all day, but it's still wildly underspecified. Even if they define it better in the actual podcast than your comment, it still feels like they're over-reaching with the label.
(unless they're talking about eyestrain and neck problems, but I have a feeling that never came up)
Anyway, is there anyone out there who has an actually useful way of discussing "screens," especially in respect to children, but also in general?
I'm keeping an eye out, but I haven't really seen it. One step better is people talking about "algorithms", and how there's a race to the bottom as genuine value loses out to virality.
ulyssessword
7d ago
Fake News You Can Trust lives up to its name once again. Their article correctly identifies that Mamdani condemned the right-wing victims, and that the perpetrators were left-aligned (I can't confirm "ISIS-inspired Muslims"). The other 95% is fake, of course, but they got the key points.
ulyssessword
8d ago
I doubt that most Iranians are ever in a position that a 1 hour phone call could guarantee the safety of Americans from a would-be terrorist attack.
I think it's a more accurate measurement of sentiment, even if it isn't practically useful.
Just turning the question around. If the information about a terrorist attack in Russia next week fell into your lap, how much time would you estimate it would take you to ensure that the right people got that that information, and how sure are you that your effort would actually prevent the terrorist attack?
Informing the Canadian authorities would probably take a couple hours up front, then a day or two in followups. I don't think they would be very invested in stopping it nowadays, so it probably wouldn't be prevented. Regardless, I did my duty.
Similarly, I'd hope that an American (even one who chants bad slogans) would inform the American authorities, and an Iranian would inform the Iranian authorities (assuming they suspect rogue actions instead of government ones). Those reports would have very different results, of course.
For the sake of argument, let's say a one-hour talk with 911 and police, after observing some strongly-suspected imminent terrorist preparations. That's about as small as you can go and still have it be a genuine inconvenience.
I think plain civic duty would get you to 75% (EDIT: among Western allies), with most of the remainder being indecision and passivity, not active hostility.
ulyssessword
8d ago
Not sure if I should seek out the Elite enemies on the map...?
You've gotta.
I haven't played 2 yet, but in StS1 (and Inscryption, Astrea, etc.) the long-term benefits of high-power fights are nearly required to beat the end bosses. If you fight two elites per Act, you'll reach the end boss with six (non-boss) relics. If you fight four, you'll have twelve. If you play it safe, then you'll be underpowered by the end, and almost certainly lose.
ulyssessword
9d ago
Same, and I'm also more optimistic about Claude than ChatGPT. Alignment and safety did turn into effectively usable capabilities.
ulyssessword
11d ago
you have no money (or negative money!) when it's time to contribute to the public good.
Just think of what you could do with billions of dollars. You could build an online shopping, shipping, book publishing, and cloud computing service that improves countless millions of lives. You could revolutionize communication and information flow or connect rural and remote people to the World Wide Web. Heck, you could just make a fun game.
Oh wait, those were all private billionaires' projects. The "public good" doesn't count unless it's filtered through the government first.
ulyssessword
14d ago
I had to reread that one so many times to figure out how good it was.
ulyssessword
14d ago
FYI, the wikipedia page doesn't contain the quote you're referencing.
ulyssessword
15d ago
Look - if Glock can't sell guns to the government while saying - you can't shoot black people because you have problems with racism, why should Anthropic be able to do so?
A toolmaker should have no say in how his tools are used once bought.
They can certainly offer to sell guns to the government under those terms, and the government can tell them to pound sand.
Similarly, Anthropic can offer to sell Claude without mass domestic surveillance or autonomous kill capacity, and the government can...agree, go back on their decision, and blacklist them from their entire supply chain. Apparently.
ulyssessword
15d ago
But The Associated Press Associates of Pressiness might be out to get you.
ulyssessword
15d ago
OpenAI just agreed to do what Anthropic would not do.
Source? The Altman tweet announcing it said that he (and the DoW!) agreed to do what Anthropic was punished for.
ulyssessword
15d ago
if they only have one drink a night
"One drink" is often standardized as 0.6 ounces of alcohol. There isn't any indication as to the quantity, but if it was a cup of vodka, then it would be about six standard drinks, which is certainly enough to count.
ulyssessword
15d ago
He hates Trump though and always encouraged people to vote against Trump?
He posts about 95% non-Trump content (by a broad definition, or 99% by a narrow one), so I'd still call it "rarely". And while we're posting 2016 articles, I'll highlight You are Still Crying Wolf.
He's certainly anti-Trump, but he's not a TDS-suffering obsessive.
EDIT: hat tip to ControlsFreak: This entire comment chain is about an anecdote from his past, not the main thrust of the paper. He described one somewhat-bad experience with GPT-5 Pro (presumably actually 5, not 5.1 or 5.2), but the rest was about 5.2. Ctrl+F "5" in the article to see that the mention is unique. It might be worth mentioning GPT 5.3 now (he mentions using Codex, so the restrictions don't completely lock him out), but even I think being three weeks behind the state of the art is fine.
I'm not sure about 14.6% vs. 31.3% pass rate on research-level math questions being a huge difference, but it's definitely noticeable.
Also, using a six-month-old model is better than usual for Science. If they had been 12 months behind 5.2 Pro (itself two months old by now) instead of four, then they would be dealing with a zero percent pass rate as o3 wouldn't have been released yet.
"Antifa activists" is a parallel to "Environmental activists". You can't be a member of "Environmental" either, because it's just an idea, not an organization.
Nobody cares about that fine distinction for environmentalism, like when Sea Shepherd ships ram whalers or when Last Generation Canada members throw paint on museum pieces. Outsiders recognize that the disparate groups (and non-affiliated individuals) all share a common goal and philosophy, and treat them as a coherent entity. This is as it should be.
Antifa is the leftiest of the left wing, so its adherents use tactics like "[not] Fucking Tell[ing] Me What Term I Am Allowed to Use for the Sweeping Social and Political Changes You Demand". 1984 may have overreached a bit when it said if you can't name something you can't think about it (hence the Party making Newspeak), but it sure does make it harder to legislate against something if you can't establish a definition first.
More options
Context Copy link