The person launching them sure does. This scenario reminds me of the time Russian hackers took over a US pipeline a couple years ago then immediately apologized saying they didn't want to cause a international incident and they would vet their targets better in the future. There are not many people who want that kind of heat. Like the first ayatollah is dead and the second is reportedly in a coma. The Iranian government is willing to pay that price and that's why they won. How many pirate leaders do you think are willing to pay their life so that their third of fourth successors can maybe collect a toll? Or how many are like Venezuela and you can kidnap one guy and the whole house folds.
I think it’s weird that you imply that it is because the American regime failed to change the Iranian regime. They (lead by Israel or not) illegally invaded a country.
It’s just Pax for those parts of the world that America and its allies are not invading (and other non-allied examples like Russia invading Ukraine).
But a typical top-comment about how America Did a Bad Thing Which Ruined The Good American-lead Times.
> I'm a very law-abiding cyclist since witnessing a few horrible accidents, and yet I encounter situations with headphone-wearing pedestrians regularly. Often I'll ring my bell to no avail, until driving right up to them, and they still won't hear me. This is really frustrating; I'm definitely in the market for this.
I’m guessing some law (law-abiding) gives you the right to bother people who are using their own feet instead of wheels because you want to pass them and they should have to actively watch out for you and yield to you? Okay, that part is fine. But I don’t see how it is nice or, I dunno, ethical.
In my experience (in my locale) as a cyclist you either give pedestrians a wide enough berth, dismount so that you can pass them if it is crowded and there is no passage, or use the vehicular road.
I remember violating this one time when I belled someone that I wanted to pass on the sidewalk. But I was a child at the time. Even more self-centered than I am now.
These seeming rules for yielding to cyclists are worse than the laws and norms when cars interact with bicycles, by the way. At least where I am: cars never honk cyclists. They have to wait for them or find a window to pass them safely. They can’t honk them into the ditch or something.
> I’m guessing some law (law-abiding) gives you the right to bother people who are using their own feet instead of wheels because you want to pass them and they should have to actively watch out for you and yield to you? Okay, that part is fine. But I don’t see how it is nice or, I dunno, ethical.
No. There are just people who will walk on a designated bicycle lane because they haven't seen the signage, are ignorant or careless about it, or will just cross it to get somewhere else. All while wearing ANC headphones. This isn't about bothering someone, but warning them. It's really no different from someone jaywalking without seeing you, and honking to make them aware of that. Or are you supposing you'd just break and wait until they're finished crossing the street?
Edit 2: I originally didn’t think of the case when you want to warn pedestrians that you are passing (without asking them to give way) in case they decide to switch direction without looking if there is any incoming entities. That seems legitimate to me. Although giving a wide enough berth might be better than doing it routinely (that could amount to a lot of noise eventually).
Edit: Since people seem to go either way: It is my understanding that in my part of the world (in Scandinavia) cyclists do not have the right of way on sidewalks (which means they can’t bell people away). They also (and I know this one) do not have the right of way while cycling across road crossings. Something that most cyclists, in my experience, violate all the time.
Quite. It drives me up the wall when cyclists not only use the sidewalk close enough to me to practically graze me (pedestrian), but expect me to actively pay attention and yield to them. Use the road, dummy (there are scarce few bicycle lanes).
I use regular headphones (not over-ear and not really noise canc.) on the sidewalk but take them off when I am crossing the street. And I of course am mindful of other pedestrians. But I’m not gonna take them off because some two-wheeler thinks they can ram into me unless I jump out of the way on the sidewalk.
Do you want a Stairmaster with that elevator? Life is for living, ostensibly. This Inevitabilism drone choir[1] may be correct that it will take my current job and after that maybe there will nothing fruitful in that department left. But I can’t imagine a life situation where I’m both surviving and using thinking-with-my-brain as some retirement home pastime/ “brainrot”-preventer.
> Stay active and engaged, and you’ll begin to stand out among your peers.
Here’s how the rat race looks in the age of AI and how you can stay ahead.
Given your shattered hope and the fact that you came to it from the same author must have meant that something in this latest comment appealed to you. Sorry to disappoint! Can I interest you in some of my other musings instead? To salvage that hope of yours.
Perspective and preferences are two out of N parts that make up a person’s opinion, which in turn is something that makes a judgement about distinguishing two things NOT arbitrary.
But partly overlapping with perspective is reasoning (subjective or objective), which is also something that makes a judgement not arbitrary. But your pre-judgement here tells me that that part is uninteresting to you.
> It's still arbitrary, even if you attempt to backfill reasoning and conflate opinion with fact.
Backill reasoning? Providing reasoning later is less legitimate? Why?
Some people state things without spelling out the reasoning because they assume it is common sense.
> The fact is, it's generated content, less sophisticated code was use to generate it, but it's still generated from text input.
Your opinions are fact. Counter-arguments are opinions masquerading as facts. Your comments here are textbook arbitrariness. ;)
To dig a little into it: it is generated content, but that’s not necessarily what their arguments hinge on at all. But there’s no point going further with this, clearly.
I am going to assume that you're still speaking in good faith for now.
>Backill reasoning? Providing reasoning later is less legitimate? Why?
I think you might miss interpret the phrasing. To backfill reasoning means you reached your conclusion prior to reasoning about it, then attempt justification afterwards.
This is indeed significantly less legitimate.
>Some people state things without spelling out the reasoning because they assume it is common sense.
"Common sense isn't common" aka incredulous fallacy. It's up to you to clarify yourself. Not to expect others understand you immediately.
>Your opinions are fact.
They factually exist, but they are mutually exclusive from the definition of being a fact.
Opinions are not facts themselves.
>Your comments here are textbook arbitrariness.
Ok, let's look at a definition
>Arbitrary describes actions, decisions, or rules based on random choice, personal whim, or impulse rather than reason, system, or law.
Not sure how you could call a statement pointing out an issue with the authors position as claimed as not following any reason, or being based on whim. The reasoning was provided and referred to a specific system (synthetic vs non synthetic). Very much out of the bounds of a book definition of arbitrary.
I noticed you did not seem to provide a definition.
>To dig a little into it: it is generated content,
That's what I said...
>but that’s not necessarily what their arguments hinge on at all.
Based on what?
The author put multiple no-AI badges on the page. Infer what you wish, but it's clear the context given the broader palle of information avaible to anyone. The author drew an arbitrary line around the context to grant themselves the use of certain tools while avoiding a blow to their morals for the use of others.
They built up a dirt hill so they can feel like they are taller.
This is a Venus v.s. Mars developer trope at this point.
> The people who typically have the most negative things to say about AI fall into camp #2 where AI is automating a large part of what they considered their art while enabling people in group #1 to iterate on their product faster.
That’s fine for people argue those things.
My criticisms of AI are mainly
1. The principle of the GenAI approach
2. Political
The first point is about how stupid the GenAI approach is (I could link to the arguments). But I have left open the door for pure results, i.e. demonstrating that it (despite my belief) works in practice. So this is not about craftmanship.
I’ve previously commented that I would respect a more principled approach even though it takes my craft.[1]
> Personally, I fall into the first camp.
Of course you do. Because...
> No one has ever made a purchasing decision based on how good your code is.
In these dichotomies the author typically puts himself forward as the pragmatist and the other side as the ones who care about things that are just irrelevant to the purchasing decision or whatever.
But the AI haters have made real arguments against AI, against the people behind AI, and so on. It’s not a matter of vibes. So maybe respond to those arguments? We don’t need another armchair lesson in psychological inclinations.
Be a pragmatist for all I care. But beware of the bloodless pragmatist who only sees what is, essentially, instant product gratification and not what comes after, or from the sides, or from below.
reply