Ah, alright. :) sometimes these things are hard to tell in text.

I wouldn’t say it’s ignoring it. I’m incredulous that DHS would pressure Facebook to cancel an account or something for the same reason I’m not as bothered by it happening: it doesn’t have real consequences.

If the government censors you, it can take your money or your freedom. Not only does it have much higher stakes, it has stakes you can’t get around. You can’t go to a platform that doesn’t mind and keep going.

If the government leans on a company, first of all that’s still government censorship and it’s not legal for the government to get a company to do what it cannot. If the specifics of the behavior are legal, it’s still government censorship and wrong (with aforementioned caveats).
That being said, the consequence of that type of censorship is loss of a social media account. You can find another venue and all they can do is keep asking people to remove the content. If someone refuses or you host overseas, there’s not really anything they can do.

There’s a benefit to society, in my opinion, for people to reject an idea. Refusing to help someone spread a message is about the most passive way to do that.

I’ve worked in the webhosting industry. If someone has a Nazi website and they need tech support, you need to ask yourself if you’re willing to take that support request or if you’re letting your manager know you’re not gonna help that message.
If the employees at a company don’t want to help you and it’s not unjust discrimination, I have a really hard time saying that it’s wrong to tell Nazis to take their website elsewhere.

I’m not aware of the specifics of that group to know how I feel.

My feelings are more born from looking at webhosting and hate/harassment websites. I have a really hard time saying it’s wrong to take down a Nazi website.
I don’t think the government should be able to, because as abhorrent as it is it’s still a political position and protected. But if the people you’re paying to host your shit don’t want anything to do with you and it’s not unjust discrimination, I don’t think society gains anything by forcing them to keep it up.

I also don’t think that applies to monopolies, quasi or defacto.

I think there’s a benefit to telling hateful groups and people they aren’t welcome in civil society. The alternative is to say that there’s no line at which society can tell you to gtfo, and people just need to tolerate you no matter what.
Shunning or deplatforming is how you do that without violence.

The grammar is ambiguous, FYI, of if you meant the censorship done by collective shout or the censorship being done to collective shout.

It doesn’t impact my reply, but I figured I’d let you know. :)

I’m against government censorship in all circumstances outside the cliche “you can’t threaten people or spread injurious falsehoods”.

I’m okay with private entities not giving people a platform if they aren’t a defacto institution. Credit card companies and financial services should be agnostic to which legal businesses they process payments and hold assets for. Much like how shipping companies are agnostic to what’s in your package, beyond what’s necessary to move it safely.
If you’re needed for society to function, I want you to blindly service society, even if people I dislike also get service.

I don’t want to be in a place where every platform needs to accept all participants as valid. There’s plenty of ways to share your viewpoint.

I think you missed that the next portion of their statement was connected to the part you (inappropriately) added the missing word to.

They’re saying, essentially, that it’s important to learn math just for a rounded education, even if it lacks application. They’re saying closer to “even if we’re eating sushi, we still need fire”.

There’s a lot of different things that get pumped into “intelligence”. There’s “reasoning ability”, “knowledge”, “wisdom”, and a whole host of others, some in the category of traditional intelligence, and others around things like emotional intelligence.

Raw knowledge is something that schools can teach through memorization. You have facts. Memorization isn’t the best way to do it, since context and such can often make information stick better, but some things you’re eventually going to memorize, intentionally or not (I don’t calculate 6*6=36 every time).

Reasoning or analytical ability is much harder to teach, since you can’t really make someone more able to have insights and such.

Wisdom is something that can be trained I’d phrase it. I don’t think you can be taught it like you can a history lesson, but it needs to be trained like a sport. How to apply reason to a situation, how the knowledge you have relates to things and other bits of knowledge. Which things are important and which aren’t.

It sounds like you’re mostly taking what I’ve called wisdom, with a dash if introspection tossed in, which can play very well with wisdom. “How sure am I about this?” Is a question wisdom might make you ask , and you need to know yourself to know the answer.
Knowing how to question the right part of something, so that you’re not getting caught up in the little inconsistencies and missing the big one, or considering the wrong facts that are unimportant to a situation.
(A pet peeve of mine) Sometimes people will bring up statistics of race in relation to crime. People with perfectly good reasoning ability and knowledge will get caught up debating the veracity of the statistics, or the minutiae of the implications of how other statistics interplay to lead to those numbers, both in an attempt to deny the conclusion of the original argument.
The more wise thing to do is to question why this person is making the argument in the first place. Use your knowledge of society to know there are racists who want to convince others. Your reasoning to know that someone more interested in persuasion than truth can twist numbers how they want. Reject their position entirely, instead of accepting their position as valid and arguing their facts.

Except that with the website example it’s not that they’re ignoring the price or just walking out with the item. It’s that the item was not labeled with a price, nor were they informed of the price. Then, rather than just walking out, they requested the item and it was delivered to them with no attempt to collect payment.

The key part of a website is that the user cannot take something. The site has to give it to them.
A more apt retail analogy might be you go to a website. You see a scooter you like, so you click “I want it!”. The site then asks for your address and a few days later you get a scooter in the mail.
That’s not theft, it’s a free scooter. If the site accused you of theft because you didn’t navigate to an unlinked page they didn’t tell you about to find the prices, or try to figure out payment before requesting, you’d rightly be pretty miffed.

The shoplifting analogy doesn’t work because it’s not shoplifting if the vendor gives it to you knowingly and you never misrepresented the cost or tried to avoid paying. Additionally, taking someone’s property without their permission is explicitly illegal, and we have a subcategory that explicitly spells out how retail fraud works and is illegal.

Under our current system the way to prevent someone from having your thing without paying or meeting some other criteria first is to collect payment or check that criteria before giving it to them.

To allow people to have things on their website freely available to humans but to prevent grabbing and using it for training will require a new law of some sort.

It really does matter if it’s legally binding if you’re talking about content licensing. That’s the whole thing with a licensing agreement: it’s a legal agreement.

The store analogy isn’t quite right. Leaving a store with something you haven’t purchased with the consent of the store is explicitly illegal.
With a website, it’s more like if the “shoplifter” walked in, didn’t request a price sheet, picked up what they wanted and went to the cashier who explicitly gave it to them without payment.

The crux of the issue is that the website is still providing the information even if the requester never agreed or was even presented with the terms.
If your site wants to make access to something conditional then it needs to actually enforce that restriction.

It’s why the current AI training situation is unlikely to be resolved without laws to address it explicitly.

The thing is a robots.txt file doesn’t work as licensing. There’s no legal requirement to fetch the file, and no mechanism to consent or track consent.

This is putting up a sign that says everyone must pay, and then giving it to anyone who asks for free.

Oh, don’t get me wrong. It’s odd for a clock to act this way, just not inexplicable. At best it’s an example of UI standards being applied without regard to sense, which is very much in line with Microsoft.

Most other clocks will do something similar, they just do it in the background. Something that’s a lot easier to do if you’re not following a UI framework that says you’re never allowed to change something in a way that might cause the user to see a weird shift. Other things just acknowledge that clock sync should only take a few milliseconds before the clock is even visible, that a timezone DB update will rarely cause a change of more than an hour, and that a user will probably not even notice if there’s a shift.

It makes sense in a weird way, but it doesn’t feel right for a clock. You need to account for the case where it does take longer than it should to update, because sometimes it will for any number of really weird reasons. So you can’t just design for the best case scenario.
Now that you have a splash screen you need to ask yourself if it’s better to show the splash screen while doing the update, or to just let the app be unresponsive for the common case of a moment and then show the splash if it goes over that.
The answer is to show the splash in the common case too.
Now people are seeing a “weird screen” for a moment before they can process what they’re seeing. So you need to make the screen have a minimum display time to keep people from being confused.

It’s weird, but people can sometimes be more confused by thinking something happened too fast.

It’s frustrating because they used the technical term in a knowingly misleading way.

LLMs are artificial intelligence in the same way that a washing machines load and soil tuning systems are. Which is to say they are intelligent, but so are ants, earthworms, and slime molds. The detect stimuli, and react based on that stimuli.

They market it as though “artificial intelligence” means “super human reasoning”, “very smart”, or “capable of thought” when it’s really a combination of “reacts to stimuli in a meaningful fashion” and “can appear intelligent”.

Don’t forget 1812 either.

Because disabling JS is unheard of in the open source world, right?

They implemented a feature that breaks the website for people who otherwise have no issues while providing no functional value to the site “rather than spending time building their actual product that people want to use.”

It’s one thing to expect them to do special work to support an uncommon configuration, and it’s another to feel frustrated that they did extra work to break a less common but still unremarkable configuration.

I entirely support people not wanting bots to scrape their shit, but there’s a handful of websites I use that use this specific blocking software and it frequently gets angry and blocks me if I’m on my phone for no good reason. It’s annoying, and getting angry at the user for being upset that your website is broken is about the only thing more unreasonable than demanding that an open source developer do work for you for free.

I wouldn’t call that “seething”, the project is targeting an English speaking audience (English is the source, other languages are translation targets), effectively no one is a native speaker of Esperanto, and it’s usage is small enough that someone could quite possibly never encounter the language.
Bad project names are common enough in programming and open source, and complained about, that I wouldn’t jump right to xenophobia as the reason someone might complain that a project picked a name knowing it would be difficult to pronounce.

They can name it whatever they want, but getting that angry that someone didn’t recognize a word in an anglisiced spelling of a word from a niche language is uncalled for.

Sure. They’re also historically terrible at being actual police. One groups job is to enforce the law and the others job is to apply force.
A soldier invariably has more training into the rules surrounding the application of force, but they have a significantly higher baseline level of violence than the police do. It’s unusual for the police to wear full armor and carry automatic rifles. In fact, one of the largest concerns about the organization of modern police forces is that they are becoming increasingly similar to the military.

The military is better at following their rules, but their rules include how to decide the number of known innocent civilians that are acceptable to kill.
We like to pretend that the people we train to dehumanize their opposition to increase lethality and who have a track record for sometimes stupendous civilian death rates will, when deployed domestically, not view the civilians here as the opposition, have a keen awareness of their personhood, and generally not act like every other time the military has been deployed against their nations civilian population.

We have rules against the military being used domestically for a good reason.

The generals quite realistically cannot stop him, short of an active coup.
The launch process is based on authentication, not authorization. As such, people who are not present are asked to verify various authentication codes. The details of the order are often not even visible to the person in question.
This allows for training exercises that are indistinguishable from a real launch order until the people in the bunker turn their keys and the readout tells them that no launch has occurred.
The selection process involves finding people who say they’re willing to kill a billion people without questioning it, screening out those that want to so you just have the ones who follow orders and don’t care, giving them snuggies, locking them underground for long enough that they’re not certain about world events, and occasionally handing them a loaded gun with orders to point it at the world’s head and pull the trigger before they find out if it’s a blank or not. If they even hesitate you replace them.

The orders are pre-cached and distributed after being vetted by lawyers. The soldiers are then trained that the order are pre-approved as legal so questioning the legality isn’t valid.

The only safeguard is for one of the few people who both know the order and is responsible for verification of identity to just refuse to validate the code.
In this case, that would mean relying on Hegseth to object.

Do you think soldiers are different than cops? Do you think someone who somehow has less law enforcement training than a cop will do the job better?

It’s a freak out because they’ve been called milks for an exceptionally long time. “Milk” has never exclusively meant the product of lactation in English. It’s always referred to something white and more opaque than not.

http://www.godecookery.com/goderec/grec31.htm

As another reply mentioned, we specifically have recipes for almond milk from before modern English.
It’s hardly a new thing, just something gaining popularity.

We have specific regulations to prevent consumers from buying the wrong thing within reason. Because most people assume milk means cow milk in the US, that’s what the standard of identity for milk refers to. We don’t need legislation specifically saying that plant milk can’t use the word because you already can’t pickup two jugs labeled “milk” and be unsure if they’re the same thing. Same as goat milk, sheep milk, milk of magnesia, 2% milk, whole milk, skim milk, vitamin D milk, lactose free milk, chocolate milk or strawberry milk.
Hell, “muscle milk” is only technically barely a milk product, absolutely isn’t milk (two milk derived proteins that using prevents a product from being labeled cheese and relegates it to “cheese product”), and would be stupendously unsuitable for cooking. No one complains about it, nor how it contains no muscle at all.

I’d find concerns of consumer protection a lot more credible if they had insisted that other animal milks couldn’t be labeled as such, or at least objected to things like “coconut water”, “rose water”, “cactus water”, “birch water”, “maple water”, “water chestnuts” or “watermelon”. Consumers are evidently only confused by plant milk though, which also prevents them from reading the name of the product. Works fine for other animal milks though, and anything that isn’t milky.

Milky way, milk thistle, milk weed, milk tree, dandelion milk… The list goes on. Oh, and don’t forget cream of wheat or tartar, for when your milky substance is also thick.

Eh, I’m not nearly so optimistic. They also got terribly worked up over the word “milk” and labeling plant based burger “burger”.

It’s more about bending over backwards to protect the meat and dairy industry from facing any possible missed revenue opportunity than protecting their actual bottom line, and more importantly about demonstrating their continued utility to the industry.
Kinda like how they’ll work hard to prevent gun regulations that no one is actually proposing because the perception of the possibility of a threat is unacceptable.