IMHO you didn’t make it sound less mad.
If coffee is made by pouring boiling water over coffee beans grinds, I would expect the temperature of the final product to be scalding hot. I would even go so far as to call it a feature.
Warning: Knives may cause injury. Well, yes, the whole point of them is to be sharp enough to cut something.
I’m glad I live in a less litigious society.
<munching_popcorn.gif>
I sat next to a teacher the other day who did just that. Every single paper was graded by an AI. It actually shocked me.
Through the Ages, the app edition of the board game.
I play that at least twice on a long flight.
I wouldn’t ban. I would make it liable for anything that gets written on it unless it can positively identitfy the user writing it. The supply it with the identify framework that allows it to anonymously identify the users and require it to only show identified users. I guarantee it that 99% of the bullshit, bots, AI slop disappears overnight and real people might actually be able to interact with each other again.
Russia Today commenting about X, the EU and Musk, posted by jackeroni.
It’s a turducken of misinformation.
Love them both for who they are and never compare them.
In the EU framework, the certifying authorities are the same that issue your passport, your driving license; the state. I fail to see the issue with allowing them to issue another proof of who I am.
The risk is tracking. The way the EU mandates this framework is built requires zero knowledge built into the system. Then you can definitely say “they lie”, but if you believe your government would lie about this, then you already believe they would lie about all the other million ways they could track you, if it wasn’t illegal for them to do so. You’re really not giving up anything you haven’t already given up when the national state was formed as a concept. And in this case we gain a lot, namely keeping profit and “engagement” out of having a conversation online. Eventually you have to trust someone - I’d prefer my democratically elected government (but I acknowledge that I live in places where I have that luxury).
What you’re describing would no doubt improve matters.
But fundamentally, we are shirking around a ground truth that the kind of things that stir in male biology aren’t terribly useful in today’s modern world; men biologically need to feel useful in their physicality, to have something to protect and something to provide for.
The terrifying slide towards all the bullshit hyper masculinity or Jordan Peterson style “self improvement” is all a reaction to the fact that, with where we are heading, many of those traits can’t find a natural home in how we’ve structured the world.
I’m super calm about this. This is based on rational analysis and technical knowledge about how the framework for this can work.
I wish to clip the wing feathers of every single US tech giant spewing their right wing, authoritarian bullshit straight into the eyeballs of every democratic citizen in Europe. I wish to do it calmly, and I am convinced it can be done.
There is 100% a route to verifying identity without privacy invasion. EU’s framework mandates ZKPs and the trial states are building it accordingly. No one will know who is verifying, where they verify, when or what they verify. The site itself will simply know “this is a legit person”.
I’m giving you an upvote, of course, because I believe in rational debate even if we disagree.
I’m not willing to sacrifice our democracy and the health of our children (I’ve got four, ages 4-18, I see the impact amongst them and their friends) on the altar of tech giants’ profit.
We hold press accountable. We ourselves are held to account for what we say IRL. Why does all that look different on social media just so Zuckerberg and Musk can line their pockets and enable platforms for non-democratic actors to involve themselves in our democracies?
It’s now official US policy to undermine European unity and support right wing nationalists.
I say bring those US tech giants to heel. We don’t have to turn into another America here, by making the same mistakes.
If Musk is against it, I’m almost always for it.
You made the dreadful mistake of saying something positive about LLMs. We shall now proceed to downvote you accordingly.
“MetaAlphabetAmazon once again refuses calls for universal basic income: ‘if people wanted handouts they should have stolen the world’s IP like we did’”
Where I live, well off (seen in global scale), white, westerner is the average. Would you prefer me to represent an opinion that doesn’t reflect what I observe in my surroundings?
I live in Denmark at the minute.
Not at the minute no.
Or I live in a country with better cops than you?
In terms of delivering the highest proven outcomes for the broadest amount of people I’ve not seen evidence that anything beats a well regulated market. If new evidence is presented I shall gladly revise my opinion.
No of course I wouldn’t prefer living in a place where legal safety standards are ignored or non-existent. But that isn’t what I said either, so I refute your false dilemma argument :)
I don’t know the details of the lawsuit. I was merely commenting that the description of the case from the post I replied to didn’t make it make more sense. Your post did, though, so thank you for that. For what it’s worth in the UK and Denmark, the two countries I know well enough, the temperature of hot drinks don’t have a legal maximum and any liability would fall under “protecting customers from foreseeable harm” broad health and safety regulations.
So the question, at least from a legal perspective is what is foreseeable. Can coffee made with boiling water be foreseen to be scalding?
Certainly in the UK, case law suggest exactly that a hot drink should be foreseen to be scalding and therefore it is not negligent to serve it at scalding temperatures; see Bogle v McDonalds (2002) - https://cms-lawnow.com/en/ealerts/2002/05/recent-case-on-the-supply-of-hot-drinks