It seems to be a rather brilliant piece of marketing to put that phrase in the title. It raises curiosity in a way that a generic "make friends" does not. (The "win" is a subtle move also.)
Once the readers are drawn in, whether from base or nobler instincts, the book can try to influence its readers into being nice.
Only trouble is that it may push away those who are "already nice" enough to feel bad about manipulating people.
Do we really need to see your every half-baked thought on here though? It's okay not to post or to set a high bar for yourself.
Frankly, even without AI, most communities get degraded as they become more popular and the stream of comments becomes overwhelming. Like there are over 1000 comments on this story and let's be honest, most of it isn't adding value. A great many of them are repeats of other posts, so the person didn't read other people's comments either.
The solutions seem to boil down to making the karma system more draconian. Like instead of focused more on downvoting garbage and upvoting gems, the slush of "mid" posts has to be dealt with somehow. Not sure if rate-limiting accounts would make a noticeable difference. Ironically, perhaps AI is also a solution to the issue, since obviously it can, for example, know all the other comments and could potentially assign some value score in the overall context.
I probably wouldn't post this here post either but I'm hitting reply because of the topic at hand...
It works great with my kids sometimes. Asking a series of questions about some kid-level science topic for instance. They get to direct it to exactly what they want to know, and you can see they are more actively engaged than watching some youtube video or whatever.
I'm sure it helps that it's not getting outside of well-established facts, and is asking for facts and not novel design tasks.
I'm not sure but it also seems to adopt a more intimate tone of voice as they get deeper into a topic, very cozy. The voice itself is tuned to the conversational context. It probably infers that this is kid stuff too.
As someone who isn't well versed in this Node ecosystem, why is omitting a standard library a separate project? It sounds like something you'd do as a Node feature, or variant of Node, or some command line switch or env var or whatever else is needed to avoid whatever it is you are trying to avoid.
Isn't this thing going to be subsidized by taxpayers in the end anyway?
California already a dumb communal insurance thing, the "California FAIR Plan" for people who can't get insurance due to high risk. They force insurance companies who operate in the state to fund it. So basically everyone has to subsidize the high-risk people... but then the insurance companies leave.
Yes, the relevant blur here is in your retina, as it tracks a moving screen object, called "sample and hold" blur. 60 fps is not enough when the pixel persists for the full frame duration -- the pixels smear across your retina.
Anyone know of articles that deep dive into "snappiness" or "feel" computer experiences?
Everyone knows SSDs made a big difference in user experience. For the CPU, normally if you aren't gaming at high settings or "crunching" something (compiling or processing video etc.) then it's not obvious why CPU upgrades should be making much difference even vs. years-old Intel chips, in terms of that feel.
There is the issue of running heavy JS sites in browsers but I can avoid those.
The main issue seems to be how the OS itself is optimized for snappiness, and how well it's caching/preloading things. I've noticed Windows 10 file system caching seems to be not very sophisticated for example... it goes to disk too often for things I've accessed recently-but-not-immediately-prior.
Similarly when it comes to generating heat, if laptops are getting hot even while doing undemanding office tasks with huge periods of idle time then basically it points to stupid software -- or let's say poorly balanced (likely aimed purely at benchmark numbers than user experience).
This paragraph looks wrong.
"In 2005, when D.R. Horton sold a record number of homes, it made $1.47 billion. In 2023, when it built roughly half as many, its profit was a little over three times as high, or $4.7 billion. "
It did not build half as many homes, it was 82917 homes in 2023 vs. 51172 in 2005. Also, the profit number should be corrected for inflation when comparing across almost 2 decades.
A topic tagging system could potentialy help people filter stuff.
"Hacking" is a mindset that can still be applied in interesting ways to social problems and assumptions. The standard political discourse does not generally operate with such a mindset (ideally intelligent, thoughtful, humble regarding uncertainties or alternative views etc.)
The audience here and moderation structure creates somewhat different takes on things even if comments are too limiting to have "debates".
These are fuzzy topics where it is difficult to objectively prove arguments, difficult to agree on philosophical scoring/ranking of various social states or end goals. The academic background is lacking in rigor and apparently ignores or suppresses large swathes of potential investigative topics.
There should be more attention given to the meta level of these topics. Having a more precise language and names for concepts would help have higher-level discussion without repeating basics all the time, and without the "appeal to emotion" type of anecdotal/moral/rage-filled discussion.
It sounds like the pilots and hence the unions have an intent to hide things from the FAA. What's the significance of this report existing and why do they openly promote this "etiquette"?
Maybe the FAA should actually encourage neutral third-parties to observe pilots.
From first principles, it is normal to ban material. The ages and exact policies are debatable but these articles are entirely one-sided.
It appears that most of the handwringing is about politically disagreeing with the bans, not hardships of obeying bans. There are always bans. But they want this material (sexuality, gender, "race theory") available even to pretty young children because of their societal goals/agenda. Others do not want that. Fight.
This recent WSJ article mentions primarily reasons of salary and student behavior, as any layman would guess from first principles. It did mention "political battles over issues such as how race and gender are discussed". Well, this is not going away -- the battle is fought from multiple directions. Another direction is the industry profits from institutions being morally obligated to buy a lot of new diversity-related books.
I brought this up because the slate article cites book banning as a reason for decline of reading for enjoyment by age 9. I am arguing it is irrelevant and also essentially false in terms of classroom libraries generally not being removed on any significant scale (or at all, probably) even in Florida.
The article cited a particular school district directive which seems to be a temporary review procedure for its high schools. It would be disingenuous to say that means teachers can't keep a library, full stop, and even in that case it seems it was immediately backtracked. The law in question has since been clarified.
Once the readers are drawn in, whether from base or nobler instincts, the book can try to influence its readers into being nice.
Only trouble is that it may push away those who are "already nice" enough to feel bad about manipulating people.