• 0 Posts
  • 8 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 9th, 2023

help-circle
  • Disagree, if every user of these 10 apps did this it would end up a lot better for them all than every user choosing their favourite and giving them $50. If they choose randomly it would end up roughly the same, but in general people are going to end up skewing towards certain apps over others when forced to choose a favourite.

    And if doing it randomly ends up the same as splitting it on a large scale, I think this is the more sensible approach personally.



  • I’m fully ready to get torn apart for this. I get victim blaming is wrong. But sometimes you can make better choices based on available information, regardless of whether it’s your fault if something happens.

    If there’s a street called Drag Race Avenue where every person that lives on it drag races up and down it all day and every week there’s a news story of someone getting hit using the crossing on Drag Race Avenue, maybe you shouldn’t use the crossing on that street. Sure, it won’t be your fault if you get hit, but how much comfort will that be when you’re injured or dead?

    It’s possible to make choices that are objectively morally/legally/ethically right that are still stupid choices. Unfortunately we don’t live in a world where as long as you do the right thing, so will everyone else and nothing bad will ever happen to you.

    Hazards are a part of life. In many if not all workplaces there are hazards. Due to this there are hazard controls, along with a widely accepted list of most effective to least effective ways to deal with a hazard. First is to get rid of it entirely (stop people drag racing on that street) but if that’s not possible, the next 2 are replace the hazard then isolate the hazard. In other words, if something exists that you can’t stop from existing, your best course of action is to stay away from it / out of its way if possible.

    These controls aren’t about victim blaming, they’re about making hazards as safe as possible. It’s not illegal to carry a box that’s too heavy for you, but you still may be injured by doing so. There’s a reason workplaces have 100s of policies that aren’t illegal but they decided you can’t do there. Because there are many things that exist that you can do that are entirely legal but could still harm you.

    Emulators might not be illegal, but Nintendo is a hazard to them that can’t be eliminated.

    I guess it depends on whether you care more about being right, or more about being safe.

    These people could make the choice to be safer if they wanted to. They could be more anonymous if they wanted to. They could stay out of Nintendo’s way. But if being right that they’re not doing anything wrong is more important so be it. Maybe they consider it worth being shut down in order to draw attention to the issue. That’s up to them.



  • At the expense of having to either hope devs do it or only use extensions that give the source, having to do it for every extension individually, having to redo it every time you want to add or remove a URL, no longer getting automatic updates, and having to redo it every time you want to update.

    I get the sentiment but it’s not worth the hassle, especially when it would be trivial to have this as a browser feature that would solve all of those problems.



  • If someone doesn’t know the answer to something and they guess, or think they know the answer but don’t, they are wrong. If they do know the answer and intentionally give a wrong answer, they are lying.

    If someone is in a competition or playing a game and they break a rule they didn’t know about, they made a mistake. If they do know the rules and break it, they are cheating.

    Lying and cheating fundamentally requires intent. This is important no matter what you’re referring to. If a child gets something wrong, you should not get mad at them for lying. If they make a mistake in a game, you should not acuse them out cheating. There is a difference and it matters.

    ChatGPT literally cannot think. It’s not sitting around contemplating it’s existence while waiting for inputs. It’s taking what you say, comparing that to everything that it’s been trained on, assigning a bunch of statistics, and outputting something based on more statistics that hopefully is correct and makes sense.

    It doesn’t know if it makes sense. It doesn’t “know” anything. It’s just an incredibly sophisticated version of “if user inputs ‘Hi how are you’, respond ‘I am well, how are you?’”.

    It can’t do things with intent. Therefore it cannot lie or cheat. It can simply output wrong or problematic text based on statistics.