Ah yes, "we did good but they messed it up, as usual!"
If the US cared enough about the well-being and the services the people have access to in the nations they invade, they would probably not do the invading bit.
smooth_tea
joined 1 year ago
Hey everyone get a glimpse of this loser!
Do you mean malware?
Oh right, so you were talking about the content, that's not what I understood under "frontend". Thanks for clearing it up.
I don't have any experience with the platform, so I'm not in a position to judge their decisions, but it's always tricky when you present yourself as censor free. There's things you obviously don't want on your service, but if it falls within the legal realm, it is no longer a matter of "will we block Nazi material" but whether from that point onward you start taking a moral and political stance.
Things get incredibly tricky and cumbersome if you choose that route, not just from an administrative perspective but also technically. I can understand why the people who operate the platform would prefer to primarily use legality as a deciding factor, as not every ideological issue that you open yourself up to if you take the other route is as straightforward as fascism.
Either you understand that the consensus is that naming things is hard and you just want to elevate yourself above everyone else by arguing against it, or you're unaware that it is the consensus, in which case your opinion doesn't really matter because you most likely underestimate the issue.
It's such a truism that I'd suggest googling "naming things is hard*.
There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation and naming things. -- Phil Karlton
"Figured it was a bad idea" actually means that some people were against it because they believed semantic class names were the solution, I was one of them. This was purely ideological, it wasn't based on practical experience because everyone knew maintaining CSS was a bitch. Heck, starting a new project with the semantic CSS approach was a bitch because if you didn't spend 2 months planning ahead you'd end up with soup that was turning sour before it ever left the stove.
Bootstrap and the likes were born out of the issues the semantic approach had, and their success and numbers are a testimony to how real the issue was, and I say this as someone who never used and despised bootstrap. Maintaining semantic CSS was hard, starting was hard, the only thing that approach had going for it was this idea that you were using CSS the way it was meant to be used, it had nothing to do with the practicality. Sure, your html becomes prettier to look at, but what good is that when your clean html is just hiding the monstrosity of your CSS file? Your clean html was supposed to be beneficial to the developer experience, but it never succeeded in doing that.
I see your point, thanks for the insight! Did you base your reply on the abstract or the full article, because they do specify "vegetable" oil. Also, in their defence, they not only state that they only intended to show a correlation instead of a causal effect, and even add that:
we only found the relationship between the cooking oil type and cardiovascular health in the elderly over 65 years old in China, and could not explain the reason.
Where do you get the idea that they focus only on sesame oil?
view more: next ›
How is your intelligence different from being "biased data that can be accessed"?
The fact that something can reason about what it presents to you as information is a form of intelligence. And while this discussion is impossible without defining "reason", I think we should at least agree that when a machine can explain to you what and why it did what it did, it is a form of reason.
Should we also not define what it means when a person answers a question through reasoning? It's easy to overestimate the complexity of it because of our personal bias and our ability to fantasize about endless possibilities, but if you break our abilities down, they might be the result of nothing but a large dataset combined with a simple algorithm.
It's easy to handwave the intelligence of an AI, not because it isn't intelligent, but because it has no desires, and therefore doesn't act unless acted upon. It is not easy to jive that concept with the idea that something is alive, which is what we generally require before calling it intelligent.