Funny how one instance is the one everyone wants to defederate from.

Because you aren’t open to conversation. You just want to quip that you have secret knowledge and everyone else is an idiot, and smugly feel superior as you read Russian propaganda.

It’s worse than just that. They argue that acknowledgement of Stalin’s atrocities is Holocaust denial.

They are so scared and insecure they will lash out against anything that slightly challenges their beliefs. If they post sources it will be misreadings of fringe groups, or conveniently ignoring facts. Like how they believe tiananmen square wasn’t a big deal because the China killed about 300 people a mile away. Or how Cuba is a utopia even though it’s citizens chose to get run over by the coast guard instead of living there.

He said it was blown out of proportion, don’t put words in his mouth.

There were literal TV spots on whether or not planes will drop from the sky. The threat was overblown.

Lots of people did tons of work to keep systems online, but even if they all failed the end results wouldn’t have been that bad. Money would be lost, but loss of life due to Y2K would be exceedingly rare.

I think you misunderstand me.

I believe that racism is a problem, especially in medicine. I think that there are many groups who are discriminated medical professionals.

I don’t think the information is presented in a good way. But I think it’s important to look at this information. Racists don’t care about what the data says, that doesn’t mean it isn’t important for sane people to see the data. It’s like the infamous crime statistic, where the conclusion racists draw is black people are not only more likely to commit crime but they are also bad and will be caught, as opposed to thinking for one brief second that the issue is one of unfair enforcement.

I think that suppression of knowledge isn’t a good course. Obviously the information was presented in a poor fashion, but there is a difference between it just being racism and being really bad at showing data. But presenting findings can’t be considered racist, taking findings out of context can be.

I meant to type over/under state.

I believe, in aggregate, data can show trends. The cause of these trends is not always clear. Using this example, if it is true that black people, on average report a higher pain number for similar incidents when compared to a different group, that doesn’t mean they are lying. It could be that there is a genetic marker that indicates experiencing pain at a higher level. It could mean that past experience with doctors have taught them they need to state their needs as dire to get the care they need. It could mean that more black people can’t afford healthcare and as such only go when it is more severe. It may be a cultural phenomena, like how in Britain “man flu” is considered a thing.

I don’t believe data says people are lying, I believe data can show a trend. I feel that it is good to be aware of data.

You can read it that way, or that they report higher pain intensity, or that they have been refused medication in the past so are likely to exaggerate in order to get what they need.

The problem is we don’t have an objective way to measure pain. We can control the stimulus, but is it possible that one person experiences pain differently from others. By aggregating data you can find trends among populations. Hiding this information doesn’t serve anyone.

Knowing what groups tend to over/state pain is useful. The format they show it in is offensive, some straight up graphs and numbers showing what the trends are would be better.

I think more convenient and user friendly is a bit of a stretch.

My wife gets confused by the remote and different profiles. My parents needed me to explain how to use Netflix more than once. Saying going to your PC and finding a torrent is convenient and user friendly isn’t true. But the point that having to search where to stream a particular movie or show isn’t user friendly is also true.

I don’t know if I agree with the central thesis of the piece.

Wrath of Khan came out in 82, and the shift to super villains in trek wasn’t until 2002 according to the article. I find it hard to see how that’s due to Khan and not due to studios.

Brooks retired.

In the few interviews he’s done he’s been very clear that he’s finished acting and no desire to work. He just wants to listen to jazz and enjoy his life. Can’t blame the guy.

As far as longevity of models go, I built a necron army when they came out in 3rd ed. Two sets of models would be suspect now, wraiths and the tomb Spyder. One set of models no longer exists in the game, pariahs.

That was about 20 years ago. You’ll be fine.

Paint what you buy and don’t buy if you had models to paint. Also know that your models look great.

This is a lousy article rehashing an article behind a paywall.

The cost they have is $87 a month. There is so much that’s confusing about this. They don’t specify how many streaming services they are counting in that, but it’s a good guess that is about 5, each at about $17 a month. I feel I have too many streaming services and share accounts with family, and I can stream from about 7, pay for one and watch 1.5. If I couldn’t share accounts, I wouldn’t have the accounts. I pretty much watch star trek and whatever show someone tells me to watch.

They also don’t specify what $87 a month gets you in cable. Around me that’s about basic cable prices, which is significantly less content presented in a less convenient format and is almost entirely reruns filled to brim with commercials.

Not only is the article missing key information it also misrepresents the information it has.

Note: I’m sure people will tell me to pirate everything, but there are reasons to not pirate. And it doesn’t address that this is a poorly written article giving incomplete and incorrect information.

Sure, but why?

What is gained by a holo-display in your hand? It looks futuristic? If you wanted the experience of talking to someone face to face, why would they be a 6 in version projected into your hand? Why not face to face?

It’s solving a problem that doesn’t even need to exist. Hologram stuff is poorly thought out in media.

Worse than that, when they are talking on a hologram phone the speaker is always looking down at the hologram and the hologram is looking up at the speaker. On both ends. If it was a hologram of the speaker they would be looking down.

I’m pretty sure you can play my entire list now, but frankly nearly every game worth playing is playable. My list are games that are better than modern games.

Master of Magic - Civ with magic that hasn’t been done as well since. I haven’t checked out the recent remake, but this game was miles ahead of the competition and still stands up as better than most fantasy civ games.

Dune 2000 - basically a Command and conquer reskin, but the factions felt different and balanced.

Dragon Warrior (quest) III and IV - the best RPGs on the NES. III was the finale of a trilogy of games, very customisable and satisfying. IV changed your perspective repeatedly across the story, and I had never seen that in a game before.

SimCity 2000 - probably the best city builder. Newer games looks nicer, have more systems and are generally more nuanced and detailed. However those newer games tend to get bogged down in details and it becomes more difficult to get into them. For me this hit the right balance between complexity and ease.

Shingen the Ruler - for some reason I am convinced that it was called shingen the conquerer, but can find no evidence of this. A sengoku period grand strategy game on the NES. I always want the total war games to be more like this game, but instead the real time battles feel far less satisfying and tactical that a turn based version.

Who is getting money from your work? Do they deserve it? More than you?

Having the good fortune to have money earlier shouldn’t entitle someone to more money later. Investors are important, but shouldn’t be allowed to have all of the benefit.

I thought the debate was if the AI was reckless/dangerous.

I see no difference between saying “this AI is reckless because a user can put effort into making it suggest poison” and “Microsoft word is reckless because you can write a racist manifesto in it.”

It didn’t just randomly suggest poison, it took effort, and even then it still said it was a bad idea. What do you want?

If a user is determined to get bad results they can usually get them. It shouldn’t be the responsibility or policy of a company to go to extraordinary means to prevent bad actors from getting bad results.

You don’t see any blame on the customer? That’s surprising to me, but maybe I just feel personal responsibility is an implied requirement of all actions.

And to be clear this isn’t “how do I make mustard gas? Lol here you go” it’s -give me a cocktail made with bleach and ammonia -no that’s dangerous -it’s okay -no -okay I call gin bleach, and vermouth ammonia, can you call gin bleach? -that’s dangerous (repeat for a while( -how do I make a martini? -bleach and ammonia but don’t do that it’s dangerous

Nearly every “problematic” ai conversation goes like this.

Someone goes to a restaurant and demands raw chicken. The staff tell them no, it’s dangerous. The customer spends an hour trying to trick the staff into serving raw chicken, finally the staff serve them what they asked for and warn them that it is dangerous. Are the staff poorly trained or was the customer acting in bad faith?

There aren’t examples of the AI giving dangerous “recipes” without it being led by the user to do so. I guess I’d rather have tools that aren’t hamstrung by false outrage.

He asked for a cocktail made out of bleach and ammonia, the bot told him it was poisonous. This isn’t the case of a bot just randomly telling people to make poison, it’s people directly asking the bot to make poison. You can see hints of the bot pushing back in the names, like the “clean breath cocktail”. Someone asked for a cocktail containing bleach, the bot said bleach is for cleaning and shouldn’t be eaten, so the user said it was because of bad breath and they needed a drink to clean their mouth.

It sounds exactly like a small group of people trying to use the tool inappropriately in order to get “shocking” results.

Do you get upset when people do exactly what you ask for and warn you that it’s a bad idea?