A model can 'analyze' the intent of a patch, 'understand' it, and then correctly merge it in a derived codebase, going further than merely resolving conflicts.
For the tulip mania, as well as other manias, I very strongly recommend: "Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" by Charles Mackay[1]
It is you that is spreading misinformation. I suggest everyone thinking Aurornis is right, to read the article below, from the smithsonian.
>But the Luddites themselves “were totally fine with machines,” says Kevin Binfield, editor of the 2004 collection Writings of the Luddites. They confined their attacks to manufacturers who used machines in what they called “a fraudulent and deceitful manner” to get around standard labor practices.
>“They just wanted machines that made high-quality goods,” says Binfield, “and they wanted these machines to be run by workers who had gone through an apprenticeship and got paid decent wages. Those were their only concerns.”[1]
OP: They were demanding protections from exploitation by the capital class: abolishment of child labour, fair wages, social protection from job loss, etc. [...] Destroying the machines was a way to gain leverage, nothing more.
You: They were also very clearly on the wrong side of history.We would not be better off if the Luddites had won and forced us all to be doing manual labor all day without the help of those evil machines they were destroying.
HN sophistry of the highest level. It's shit like this that made the sophists deeply hated back in the days (today too, i would add)
You completely ignored the point of my post, the factual inaccuracies in the post I was responding to, and used the cheap trick of attacking words I didn’t say (literally the strawman fallacy)
Ironic that you’re waxing philosophically about the quality of comments on HN while doing all of this.
let me parse what you're saying: you're saying there are no issues with male teenagers generating deepfakes of their female friends. You're saying that's is " normal and part of the human experience."
Do you have an issue with male teenagers generating deepfakes of their female friends in their minds? What if they drew them? What if they photoshopped them? What if they had an AI make them? I suppose if I used such an uncharitable reading of your comment I would ask you're some kind of puritan supporter of thoughtcrime. Am I getting this wrong?
Being curious about other people's bodies is part of the human experience. Sharing unwanted graphic depictions of them, is not the most mature act, but doesn't rise to the level extreme punishment as advocated by the GP.
No you are correct. A lot of people seem to think that the solution is to tell all the girls who are affected by this to get over it and that they should be flattered.
And that's still a better solution than telling them to be traumatized by fake depictions that never even happened, or allowing advocates to use this as a wedge to put more restriction on speech. At least the 2A supporters have the balls to say "from my cold dead hands", who is there stand for 1A?
That is not what the person you were responding to said. Let me quote the full context (emphasis mine):
> It used to be that if you wanted to see people naked you’d just use your imagination. If you really wanted you’d draw or use photoshop, but both actually required skill. AI made it too easy. Teenagers wanting to see each other naked is normal and part of the human experience.
reply