It’s just a tighter grouping of (biased) data that can be searched and retrieved a bit quicker.

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.

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.

So, you’ve talked to a few people, and now group a is better than group b?

Not only is it a ridiculous implication, but you’re somehow grouping up the beforementioned as if they’re not all individuals, who no doubt each have the capability to be extremely annoying.

You then juxtapose this against the right wing/constitutionalists, but why? Why does everything devolve into left vs right? You think all the gay and trans people are automatically left leaning? You’re invalidating the existence of quite a few people just to make a bad argument.

Hey everyone get a glimpse of this loser!

It’s a bit late to worry about internal mics when everyone has their phone on them at all times.

That’s because it’s not dirt but normal pigmentation of the shell.

What would be the point of washing that part of the egg you’re going to throw out 3 seconds later?

Do you mean malware?

Am I the only one who fails to see anything seriously wrong with what you list there? I’m purposefully ignoring “misinformation spreading conspiracy theorist”, because that’s a pretty meaningless accusation and is often added as an easy character assassination rather than something substantial, but I’d like to see you elaborate.

I mean, we’re talking jail time and extradition, and nothing you’ve mentioned is even against the law in the slightest. Yes, there was piracy on his file sharing site, but that’s true for practically any service on the internet, from Google drive to Amazon S3 and anything in-between and vaguely related.

Characters like him are targeted because they are both successful and anti establishment, the eccentricity just tops it off. But why should that result in a lack of sympathy? The world doesn’t have enough of these people who rock the boat if you ask me.

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.

Guys, just because the backbone of your site is decentralized doesn’t mean your centralized frontend can’t be modified by you.

I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Did you mean can be modified? Or what does this have to do with Nazi rhetoric? Maybe you have a different idea about the word “frontend”?

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

https://www.namingthings.co/

“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.

Life is so simple when all that fits in your head is left versus right.

If you can’t even admit that woke culture tries to clean everything up and has exacerbated the issues then you’re simply in denial. It’s all around you, it’s on TV, it’s in comedy clubs, it’s in movies, it’s in universities. If you can’t even acknowledge that, it suggests to me that you can’t really argue with it, but rather need to act that it doesn’t exist.

You’ve gone from name just one to it’s happening all the time pretty quick. Of course it’s something that’s always been around, but we tend to have the ability to gauge the gravity of a situation and react accordingly to address them. Of course that assumes you’re able to admit there’s an issue in the first place.

That wasn’t my comment, and it obviously was just an arbitrary example.

but that doesn’t mean an old comedy show couldn’t be made today because of some sort of political correctness directive, it means modern audiences find new things funny because the comedy landscape changes.

If the issue were simply a different taste in comedy, people wouldn’t be up in arms about it, it would just be ignored, like many things that aren’t popular. If you want to deny that there is a tendency to comb through everything just to find something offensive to rage against, then the discussion is pointless.

We haven’t just gone through a deadly pandemic because many people got ill and survived. It seems that you don’t know what a logical fallacy is.

Correct me if I’m wrong but you are the only one mentioning the year 2005. You agree things have changed, but in each of your comments you are suggesting that nothing is going on. Which is it?