Agree 100% ... but it would be nice to have some softer edges around those things, where I don't have to be so prescriptive and robotic in the way I make such requests. For example if I set a 15 minute timer, I'd like to be able to follow up five minutes later with "actually that 15 minute timer should have been 16 minutes" and not second guess whether it will do the correct thing.
Indeed. The person who responded made the following points:
* BHG then made a thuggish and threatening post on your user page:
* BHG later characterised this like "oh but he was trolling me and I merely asked him one time on his talk page to stop (which is allowed)", which is bollocks because the "one time" is a long, angry screed written in a menacing tone.
And yet, no action was taken against her. I wonder why that was? And yet I was the one who was indefinitely banned. There was clear bias, and Wikipedia lost a good contributor. One I would say did far more than she ever did (she dealt with categories and dead links, and one article relating to Ireland).
Incidentally, if you want to know what the poster missed... it was that it was a one-way interaction ban. BHG was never, not even once, admonished for the way she treated me. In fact, her supporters actively encouraged her to attack me. When she attacked me, I was unable to defend myself or respond. Does that sound like procedural fairness to you?
Funnily enough, she did this to one too many people and was banned. I was banned by her supporters, not by ArbCom. It's what is known as a kangaroo court.
But hey, fairness and impartiality on Wikipedia was something that was lost a long time ago. Wikipedia is continuing to slide into obscurity. The ones who are active are most interested in drama, and not content. I feel sorry for those who are there for the content.
Is the person best known for exploiting security vulnerabilities to get into places you'd rather they didn't, and then getting lost and taking forever to get places the ideal namesake for your AI workspace project?
Out of all the homeric heroes, the main characters are just one tragic flaw after another. Odysseus is pathologically distrustful, Achilles is a diva that throws temper tantrums.
You gotta pick a dude like Sarpedon who just was a swell guy poking holes in greeks with his spear until he gets killed by Patroclus and everyone is sad.
I'm rereading the Iliad right now and was just reflecting on the fact the first time you see Odysseus at work he's selling two incompatible flavors of bullshit to officers and their men, in service of a third flavor of bullshit that was decided upon in advance at a war council.
I can think of worse. Inspired by somewhat surrealist names of a cat video, I'm pretty sure naming them "HP Inkjet 3482" would be a worse name for an AI model and lead to copyright issues from Hewlett-Packard.
Even new Kindles don't support EPUB, per-se. The Send-to-Kindle service started supporting EPUB, and converts them to AZW3 or KFX for actual delivery to your Kindle.
But you cannot just USB an EPUB onto your Kindle without any conversion process. (Calibre does make it very simple, though.)
I haven’t looked into it, but does it allow arbitrary UI? It sounds like they’re just buttons that trigger a single action, which isn’t sufficient for replacing menu items.
I'm not sure you appreciate why PHP was successful. You might be completely right about all this, but the LAMP-stack "just upload this file to shared hosting" workflow is what made apps like WordPress win out, and the barrier remains significantly higher to do the equivalent with Rust.
It's a mismatch with our intuition about how much effort things take.
If there's humans involved, "I took this data and made a really fancy interactive chart" means that you put a lot more work into it, and you can probably somewhat assume that this means some more effort was also put into the accuracy of the data.
But with the LLM it's not really very much more work to get the fancy chart. So the thing that was a signifier of effort is now misleading us into trusting data that got no extra effort.
(Humans have been exploiting this tendency to trust fancy graphics forever, of course.)
It is not limited to graphics, better packaged products, better dressed / good looking well spoken person and so on. Celebrity endorsements depend on this thesis.
There has always been a bias towards form over function.
An example that is hard to follow defeats the point. It's just showing what pattern is possible and you can imagine the abstraction layers and indirection that would make it happen accidentally.
reply