Well yes, you didn’t get first ads. But what about second ads?

I’m aware, it was mostly a joke about these “features” making Notepad worse. Nevertheless, thank you :)

More like Notepad–, amirite

Let’s go with the Cambridge definition:

a perfect society in which people work well with each other and are happy

The Oxford Languages definition is incomplete enough to not be a valid counter argument - “perfect” doesn’t mean everyone 100% gets what they want. The only sensible interpretation is “perfect” from a societal perspective.

But if yes, then as long as current conditions meet anyone’s definition of utopia, then we’re all living in one.

No, Utopia has a defined set of meanings. If current conditions meet someone’s definition of Utopia, but doesn’t meet the defined set of meanings, it doesn’t mean current conditions are Utopia.

“Utopia” doesn’t mean everyone gets what they want. People can want things to be worse while still living in a Utopia.

Rip and tear, until it is done. And you can start knitting again.

Nice code, good job!

Oh no, one of them is always going to roll off the tongue better than the other :(

No, it’s not just about stalkers, it’s about harassment in general. But even if it were, even stalkers are still people and don’t work fundamentally different.

Feel free to show any research proving me wrong, but unless you find any, the reasonable position is “humans work the same on this topic as on others”.

I know, but it still didn’t fully remove it.

Sure, but it doesn’t have to be fully removed to have an effect.

The thing is that there really is no price, nor was there ever one. Your suggestion that you think there is demonstrates that the way blocking worked gave people dangerously wrong ideas.

Sorry, but you don’t get to redefine how humans work. There is a price, because friction reduces the likelihood of people following through. Removing that friction increases the likelihood of people following through. You might not want to believe this to be the case, but please read studies on the topic - it’s just how humans work. You don’t get to dismiss negative effects because you don’t believe in them.

Twitter massively reduced visibility for logged-out users, so just logging out doesn’t help, you have to log into a different account. This additional fraction reduces the amount of harassment a lot. Not sure that being “more honest” is worth the price, especially when an info box could achieve the same without making harassment easier.

Sounds like you’re categorically defining everything someone does without being forced as “want”. But who is the “you” that wanted to do it if you’re not conscious of that want? Do I breathe while in a coma because I want to? Do I stop breathing because I want to? Or does my low-level biology force me in those cases?

No. Security through obscurity is bad security, but it’s still an additional layer. And since there’s literally no way to 100% ensure that a machine is being controlled by a human, there’s literally no other way except saying “fuck it” and not doing any security at all.

It’s not. PHP used to use the function length as hash buckets, so by having evenly distributed lengths the execution time was faster. No idea where GP came up with that.

I love it. Finally, I remember what these pictures felt like before I knew they were bullshit. It’s a certain mysticism that was missing.

If you can’t reject, they either don’t need the pop-up, or they’re not in compliance with the law. Either way it’s in no way the fault of the lawmakers.

It’s not just a warning, it’s also an option to reject.

It’s an interesting question! From my point of view, “devaluing human effort” (from an artistic perspective) doesn’t really matter - humans will still be creating new and interesting art. I’m solely concerned about the shift in economic power/leverage, as this is what materially affects artists.

This means that if your robot creates paintings with an output rate comparable to a human artist, I don’t really see anything wrong with it. The issue arises once you’re surpassing the limits of the individual, as this is where the power starts to shift.

As an aside, I’m still incredibly fascinated by the capabilities and development of current AI systems. We’ve created almost universal approximators that exhibit complex behavior which was pretty much unthinkable 15-20 years ago (in the sense that it was expected to take much longer to achieve current results). Sadly, like any other invention, this incredible technology is being abused by capitalists and populists for profit and gain at the expense of everyone else.

There’s a simple argument: when a human studies Van Gogh and develops their own style based on it, it’s only a single person with very limited output (they can only paint so much in a single day).

With AI you can train a model on Van Gogh and similar paintings, and infinitely replicate this knowledge. The output is almost unlimited.

This means that the skills of every single human artist are suddenly worth less, and the possessions of the rich are suddenly worth more. Wealth concentration is poison for a society, especially when we are still reliant on jobs for survival.

AI is problematic as long as it shifts power and wealth away from workers.