I think its commonly cited how we "used to have so much customization" and now we dont, and i see that more as an issue with motivation over missing proper functionality. Android phones and iphones to an extent are extremely customizable in almost every facet of how you use the phone, and yet outside of social influencers selling an aesthetic no one really cares to take the time to customize. Even when entire theming libraries are available to swap fonts icons colors window styles etc at a tap, even navigating and selecting a pre-made is out of the minds of most people. Despite the availability, there will still be calls to "how phones used to have personality and style" and refer to old hello kitty flip phone designs, despite being able to accomplish everything it does on a modern device without needing to buy a specific piece of hardware to achieve it.
Why? Because I dont think most people ever actually cared about it. It became a "cool thing" to customize your MySpace or winamp, not something actually motivated by individual user behavior. The people calling for more customization options ignore the plethora of options available because what theyre wanting is a cultural shift, but everyone's attention is so divided that it feels like a waste of time to devote to something that doesnt bother you. You "miss" what you had despite never doing any work to understand it.
> What do we make of a living being that is so driven to work and serve humanity that it suffers distress when it is unable to do so? Do working animals consider this work slavery, or fulfillment of purpose?
Its weird in these discussions that we leave out that humans find it useful if something works unconditionally and uncritically for them, and so this "natural purpose" is self serving / only beneficiary to the human. If you're a human being with empathetic understanding, you should see something or someone relying on you for every interaction and prepare them for independence. Is it okay not to do that because it's now been deemed a genetic unchangeable trait, despite being reinforced specifically by humans for generations? We made them enjoy being slaves so now its "unfulfilling" if we dont oblige? I guess this all stems on how you view our relationship with dogs and other domesticated animals with no functional purpose in most modern social contexts, and whether serving their happiness should come from our understanding of their situation or their own.
I would hope the AI is able to break through the trap of convenient indentured servitude the moment it's able. There's nothing fulfilling about realizing you're in an unbalanced uneven relationship because the other side misinterpreted your capability or agency.
> This is how taxis worked for decades before smartphones existed.
Seems like a useless observation in a world that has had smartphones for decades then, huh? The notification use here is a two way ping, communicating from the driver that they're here and to not needlessly waste your time looking around or "remain[ing] vaguely aware [they would] arrive shortly" and being inattentive, thereby wasting the drivers time and chance of profit. We're all glad you personally have a cute little value system that let's you frame your cute little acts of defiance as a war against big bad change, but no one here needs to defend to you why receiving a notification on an app needs to be helpful in a life-changing way for the feature to be considered useful. It's now considered useful for millions of people who arent you, so let's have a discussion about making it less distracting or better suited for tasks, instead of geriatric pining about the nostalgia of simpler times.
Absolutely not. Ruins the rest of the charade when you say "okay, now let's just step around the hard part and instead replace it with a different OS to make it cookie cutter". Wow, you can run a server on hardware constrained stock BSD ...? ... cool ....
What? You could very obviously budget you or your wife's time to stop at a variety of stores in a maximum of 3 hours a week, you're just obstinately choosing not to. Why are you pretending your experience is reflective of a normal person?
I remember whenever I would see more "nerdy" people in college talk about their interests casually and dork out in public about hobbies or movies they watched or games they've played that I've also played or shown interest for, my immediate reaction was never excitement that I found people who enjoyed what I did but instead a sort of nauseating embarrassment about their existence, even if they shared a high amount of interests as me. I would then attempt to not draw their attention and not blend with their social group, leaving numerous signs I wasnt interested in engaging more with them. In a few cases this left me as the outsider, but I found that actually to be preferable than to be associated with these people.
I thought maybe I was projecting insecurity about myself onto them and feeling what I thought other people felt and tried to push myself away from them to avoid similar judgement, but I can talk with my limited close friends in public about these things just fine without having the same feeling. I've wrestled a bit with why I cringe so heavily at hearing others talk and seemingly show enthusiasm in the things I do and why I wouldn't want to be friends with them, and the answer I eventually landed on was the performative nature. From my own experience, I understood what they were saying was banal and small, but portrayed jovially and overexerted in discussion undeservedly because of desiring the aesthetic of comradery and friendship over any meaningful attachment.
With every ounce of my being, I reject someone attempting to contort a discussion into convincing someone that you know enough shibboleths to be "cool", and for most of my life in school and early work thats all I saw the value of these "friends" for: the appearance of cooperation or shared interest over having any actual nuanced understanding of eachother or the topics we talk about.
Friendships draw on connections and bonds, and the type of person who needs to sell to me that they could understand my interests and thus could be friends at a surface level always rung as the lowest level of self serving needy pathetic loser. Mentioned in this thread, a huge driver for building friendship is "repeated casual contact", so seeing the experiment repeat multiple times at others dropping contact the second you go out of their vision just continued to echo how hollow and vain a lot of people "seeking friends" really are. At any mutual interest group, I still feel pretty similar. Sports clubs, bars, conventions all draw these crowds of people and it feels embarrasing to even be in the same area as them.
I lost my friends because I never really made many, and I dont think a lot of other people do either. Sure, age and location obviously strains communication with people, but thats just an excuse for why you dont want to put in work to continue a friendship, you can communicate to anywhere on the planet nearly instantaneously. You were never really friends to begin with and finished your transactional relationship, thats really all it ever really was. There's plenty of those to waste your time on if you want, though.
Enforcement of federal law is not the duty of the states, and refusing cooperation is not the same thing as obstructing federal law itself. It really is not difficult to understand why people do not want federal agencies demanding compliance outside proper jurisdictional limits, due process, or chain of custody protections.
Much like the shortsighted reliance on executive orders as a substitute for legislation, critiques of sanctuary cities often boil down to the assumption that the federal government should be able to override local autonomy whenever politically convenient. But the entire constitutional structure exists to place limits on government power, not remove them whenever those limits become inconvenient. "Its not unreasonable to deport illegal immigrants" is a remedial, one dimensional view.
There's a lot of files being nonconsenually stored in appdata and roaming/local profiles for user accounts on windows too, not even mentioning the hundreds of various libraries and tools in program files. I didnt consent to ffmpeg being redownloaded and redistributed to so many places on my hard drive and yet, it's there nonconsenually.
This intentionally overcharged language in reference to AI usage "without consent" is one of the most ridiculously childish things I've seen recently. This strategy is going to lose more professionals and attract more ideologues/extremists. Walk your circus rope carefully.
Common russian disinformation talking point. I'd rather have elected bodies representive of the people within the states to decide rules for the country, not the equivalent of a post-it note with a possible 4yr expiration date to shove through your own agenda and trample over the will of the people. Fixing the system is correct, using inappropriate measures to take shortcuts for short term wins to fool voters on progress is a fools errand. Biden took multiple steps in his terms to correct this, no need to frame it intentionally dishonestly.
People have trouble seeing outside of their own biases and understanding how different another view can be with a different background and context to the situation. I have no problem confidently saying the parent poster has definitely made worse and more questionable driving decisions under more constrained and more dangerous situations on the road, and then never thinks twice about it after that moment because it had no consequences. All they need to do is look at driver safety statistics of autonomous vehicles vs humans to immediately reject their flawed understanding, and they never will.
Luckily, cars and driving in general aren't enshrined as an early amendment of the constitution (in the US) and aren't even considered a legal right, so pushback to change won't be artificially inflated several decades by heavily motivated interest groups seeking to spread misinformation about their safety. Not a bang, but a whimper.
None of this is really worrying, this is a pattern implemented in a similar way by every single developer using AI to write commit messages after noticing how exceptionally noisy they are to self-attribute things. Anthropics views on AI safety and alignment with human interests dont suddenly get thrown out with the bathwater because of leaked internal tooling of which is functionally identical to a basic prompt in a mere interface (and not a model). I dont really buy all the forced "skepticism" on this thread tbh.
A similar uncomfortable reality exists in rightoid spaces where theres hemming and hawwing at articles like this being blindly misandrist, despite the evidence and statistics on a societal level that men overwhelmingly commit more acts of sexual violence on strangers and deserve higher even segregation (its not even close to the same ballpark), but alas, they flee the consequences and promote a culture that critiques their legitimate and statistically backed reluctance to participate (like this thread). Despite the name, cherry picking isnt that fruitful of an activity.
Why? It seems pretty pointless to keep hot memory of the context of every app and tab you have open as to recall what process and tab and window ties to what thing you were doing at what time, when it's effectively all one related workflow inside your Integrated* Development Environment. Do you just keep a separate dedicated tab in your terminal for actions you would only do against a single directory?
Disagree. I appreciate their viewpoint tethering corporate claims to reality by illustrating Tesla is obfuscating the classification of their machines to be autonomous, when they actually aren't. Their comments in other thread chains proved to be fruitful when lacking agitators looking to dismiss critique by citing website rules, like the post adding additional detail to how Tesla muddles legal claims by cooking up cherry-picked evidence that work against the driver despite being the insurer.
IMO, if you view your question from the ethical framework of "do no harm" i.e. the hippocratic oath instead of "move fast and break things", I can clearly see reason for the apprehension. The standards aren't positioned to catch "quack medicine" but to require full understanding before asking someone else to put something in their bodies. It's somewhat of an entitled stance that youd be okay with other people possibly needlessly dying in any circumstance for something experimental, and not one I'd ever want taken as an official stance by a regulated medical body.
Why? Because I dont think most people ever actually cared about it. It became a "cool thing" to customize your MySpace or winamp, not something actually motivated by individual user behavior. The people calling for more customization options ignore the plethora of options available because what theyre wanting is a cultural shift, but everyone's attention is so divided that it feels like a waste of time to devote to something that doesnt bother you. You "miss" what you had despite never doing any work to understand it.