I think what it all comes down to is most people don’t really want rational debate, and don’t participate in debates in the hope of learning or even to help others learn. Most people participate in debates to feel superior/“own” the other side. The result is debates that are typically lazy, uninformative, and downright mean.

I think all of us have a little bit of this desire for superiority in us and we need to consciously make an effort to suppress it.

We would be, if not for Devo

deleted by creator

Now imagine this happens in a remote area with no cell coverage. In Arizona those are a thing too.

“Sustaining the space mission, disaster preparedness, and communications efforts across a 14-year timeline would be challenging due to budget cycles, changes in political leadership, personnel, and ever-changing world events,” the report says.

First administration: “We must do something about the asteroid. I’ve started a plan to divert it, but it’ll take several years.”

Second administration: “The asteroid is a corrupt globalist conspiracy. We never needed to divert asteroids in the past, why do we supposedly need to spend all your hard-earned tax dollars on this all of a sudden? I will prove my anti-elitist attitudes by cancelling the asteroid program as soon as I take office.”

Third administration: “Yes we recognize that the asteroid is a threat, but as we saw last time there’s just too much political resistance to solving it. Let’s focus on other priorities that we can solve.”

He deserves to lose every dollar, it’s the most arrogant business move in history and he disrupted thousands of lives of workers with good jobs in the process. Unfortunately it’s only like 10% of his net worth, he’s the one who will suffer the least relatively speaking.

The point isn’t to have it be a lie detector but a factual claim detector. So you have an neural network that reads statements and says “this thing is saying something factual” or “this is just an opinion/obvious joke/whatever” and a person grades the responses to train it. So then the AI just says “hey this thing is making some sort of fact-related claim” and then the warning applies no matter what.

Let he who has to deal with that friend who constantly sends blatantly false Xits to them throw the first stone. Honestly I feel like every social media post that makes a factual representation should come with a big flashing warning “THIS IS ALMOST CERTAINLY FALSE, LOOK IT UP BEFORE YOU REPEAT IT YOU DUMMY!”

And I’m only like 10% joking. Given the success of language models it should be moderately trivial to train one to recognize when a factual statement is made and apply the above warning. It’s not even the children and teens I’m worried about. The people who seem to have the most trouble handling this are the adults.

deleted by creator

Wear and tear doesn’t kill a car; rust does.

X has been toying with the idea of fully embracing adult content and has even planned a feature for adult creators that could position X as an OnlyFans rival. That plan was delayed, Platformer reported in 2022, after red-teaming flagged a seemingly insurmountable obstacle to the launch: “Twitter cannot accurately detect child sexual exploitation and non-consensual nudity at scale.”

Non-consensual porn had also been a serious problem for PornHub, eventually they just nuked all unverified accounts.

Hmm, maybe that’s the plan for X too. It’s been going in that pay-to-play direction for a while now.

This vehicle is a rolling Poe’s law.

Drive the new Tesla Knifemobile. Made of pure space-grade stainless steel pressed into sharp edges, it’s the deadliest truck on the road. Wimps need not apply.

Where’s Infinite Solutions when you need him

How would it though? It probably didn’t have any images like this in the train-ing data.

deleted by creator

Bluesky saw this exodus of people from Twitter show up, and it was a very, very common crowd. … But little by little, they started asking Jay and the team for moderation tools, and to kick people off. And unfortunately they followed through with it. That was the second moment I thought, uh, nope. This is literally repeating all the mistakes we made as a company.”

This is the same problem that all these “free speech platforms” keep running into. Some people will abuse free speech - if nothing else, I think everyone can agree spam is a type of abusive speech. But the difference between abusive speech and ordinary speech isn’t a sharp line, and the definitions of “abuse” will vary. So there needs to be some mechanism or rules for deciding what that line is. But all the people that create these platforms instead wanna pretend that line doesn’t exist, so they don’t create a means of determining it. So then “abuse” becomes whatever the users demand and/or the decisionmakers decide it is. Which is exactly the same as having no free speech to begin with.

If you assume:

1. X is a bad thing (either because it promotes bad ideas, or because it crowds out better platforms, or some other reason)
2. The more users and functionality X has, the more powerful it will be.

Then removing functionality from X is a good thing.

As productivity increases, artificial scarcity becomes necessary to maintain pre-existing levels of inequality.

There’s 2 kinds of evidence.

• Circumstantial evidence - relies on an inference to connect it to the conclusion (e.g. guy saying before hand he won’t kill himself).
• Direct evidence - no additional inference/evidence is needed (e.g. video of a guy going up to the car and shooting him).

The guy saying he won’t kill himself requires inferring that he’s being truthful when he said it and that he didn’t change his mind. It’s not non-evidence, it does point to suicide being less likely. But it’s far from conclusive. If there’s no sign of entering the vehicle or that a struggle occurred, then I’d argue that far outweighs his prior statement.

They just happened to work at the same company and die right before they could testify on the same thing.

That’s also a common misunderstanding, at least regarding the first (I’m not as familiar with the second). I’m a bit unclear on the details of the deposition - which side wanted it and was asking the questions, etc. (detailed here) but whatever the case, it was Boeing that demanded he come back for one more day. So if Boeing wanted him to not testify that day, they’d just send him home as originally planned. The only reason they’d do it then was to silence him generally…but doing it in a way that draws so much suspicion to them seems like an implausibly bad decision. Then again, it is Boeing. (Note that this is also circumstantial evidence, and requires assuming that Boeing isn’t so dumb as to kill a witness in the middle of their own deposition, which may not be warranted).

Edit: corrected my own misunderstanding of deposition

According to the report, the sales decline came from all across Asia. Net sales were down in Greater China (PRC, Taiwan & Hong Kong), Japan, and the Rest of Asia Pacific, while the Americas and Europe saw an insignificant change that can be rounded up to 0%.

This makes sense. Apple has its status as “the one and only smartphone” in the US, but in other countries buying a phone that costs a tiny fraction as much is probably a bigger draw and has less social stigma.