Rob: They're not real. You get that, right? None of it is real. The critics aren't real. The customers aren't real. Because... this isn't real.
Chef Finway: [laughing awkwardly] Okay...
Rob: Derek, why do you care about these people? They don't care about you. None of them. They don't even know you because you haven't shown them. Every day, you'll wake up, and there'll be less of you. You live your life for them, and they don't even see you. You don't even see yourself.
[long pause; Derek's tight smile has slowly faded into a look of sorrow and regret]
Rob: We don't get a lot of things to really care about.
Like Digi-D, the authentication app for all government services. It’s a confusing Byzantine mess for elderly people. For a first-world country with gazillions of rules to protect every minority you can think of, they should be deeply ashamed of the barely beta quality turd they’ve unleashed on the elderly. You’d think some kind of geriatric/cognitive/UX specialist could have been consulted.
God I hate Uw Zorg Online. The app recently had a 500 issue with retrieving my medical history, and looking into the API it's because it can't retrieve my (completely unrelated) allergies history. Of which I have none.
Abstraction stacks hiding complexity all the way down. Maybe the kernel touch driver sometimes reports duplicate events due to a race condition, so the user mode library drops events it thinks are duplicates... Maybe the application changes some shadow DOM state when you touch and the framework ignores events while the real DOM is out of sync and thinks it's also being clever by deferring the DOM sync... Maybe it's just polling every 200ms for a current touch.
Once I tried writing an app in early windows style: inside the mouse down handler redraw the button as pressed, etc. Not setting the button state to pressed and triggering a redraw, but actually changing the pixels inside the handler. It's a huge layering violation but it's actually refreshing to cut through all the BS and make the computer just do the right thing, and it actually worked better most of the time than a modern framework app.
Their marketing worked well here, most Tesla drivers I know have commented that they will never need to service their car. At least, they do until they wear their tyres to the point they disintegrate while driving. A mechanically illiterate public coupled with effective marketing is a dangerous combo when they're flying around in 2 tonne boxes still filled with wear parts.
> At least, they do until they wear their tyres to the point they disintegrate while driving
I don't think anyone who knows tires wear out thinks Teslas have special tires that don't wear.
> A mechanically illiterate public coupled with effective marketing is a dangerous combo when they're flying around in 2 tonne boxes still filled with wear parts.
Good news: Teslas will tell you when you do need to do the little maintenance that is required, including worn tires.
I believe it's the only, or at least first, car that measures tire wear by comparing GPS distance traveled to wheel rotations, accounting for tire pressure.
Perhaps you should be taking his keys instead. Though tire rotation is just an economic decision (I haven’t had a car that could have its tires rotated in decades) not a safety decision. Just means tire will need replacing sooner.
No, this is a long-term thing. In high school the minivan I drove to violin practice crapped its engine onto the freeway because it apparently hadn’t had an oil change in years.
I am working on changing the bushings and seals on the forks, and the diagrams are correct, I have them completely disassembled, and tbh I dont think I would've been able to have good mental model of them just from the manual.
The brakes also seem correct and the electrical as well, the starter relay relay assembly and fuses at least seem correct. I have not open the engine itself yet so cant confirm. But I will do a shim check soon, so I will let you know :)
It's very caring and reassuring also. It gave me an elaborated response on how researchers may discuss ridiculously fun theories. And what should be my takeaways as engineer. I guess I should turn off the Work IQ.
as an art enjoyer, i do not feel that having less media written, drawn, or voiced by a computer is a loss.
a computer can never be sad or horny or have taste. it can only make product. i also think artists should be paid living wages with good working conditions.
thank you SAG-AFTRA, WGA, IATSE, AEMI and Teamsters.
Nope. That is what's called a rhetorical question and a pretty good one because obviously it stirred some emotion in you.
Was your question supposed to be profound? Surely someone has explained to you that record players don't compose music.
Perhaps you could be a little more charitable and less toxic here and answer my obviously non-rhetorical question: Why shouldn't I enjoy things that were created through an automatic process? Hmm?
> Nope. That is what's called a rhetorical question and a pretty good one because obviously it stirred some emotion in you.
I guess if your goal is just to get any reaction, it was good, since it definitely stirred up annoyance in me? Unfortunately it also showed that you're fundamentally misunderstanding the arguments brought against AI media, be it willfully or accidentally. Either way, it gives me zero reason to want to discuss the topic with you.
> Was your question supposed to be profound? Surely someone has explained to you that record players don't compose music.
No, it's a stupidly simple question. GP is equivocating two things that obviously show fundamental qualitative differences, but did not give any reasons why this equivocation is supposed to make sense.
When I see comments where the only interpretation I can see has major and obvious logical gaps, I sometimes ask the obvious question in the hopes that they can show me a perspective I haven't properly encountered before. Because surely all of us are capable of recognizing how weak arguments based on "two topics look vaguely similar once you strip all nuance", when you can do the same with almost any two things?
> I guess if your goal is just to get any reaction, it was good, since it definitely stirred up annoyance in me?
Do you think that my goal is only to get a reaction and not to try and make any other point? I think someone who was "just" trying to get a reaction probably would just curse at you or do something else. Reactions are signals though and annoyance in particular is a very useful signal, hopeful to the one who experiences it. More importantly though, why, when you responded to me the first time, did you not address the very obvious non-rhetorical variant of my question though and instead, decide to appeal to me with sarcasm about the profundity of the rhetorical variant?
I'm trying to engage here and not put my trauma on display so I'll try to be as straightforward as I can. I am sincerely trying to respond in kind to you by telling you the truth and I will be glad to explain, in detail, my point of view. So, let me do that:
> GP is equivocating two things...but did not give any reasons why...
Yes. And I had hoped to correct that equivocation by pointing out the many random and/or automated processes that produce beautiful or otherwise enjoyable things. I wasn't agreeing with GP, I was improving the position. And I did, because very many useful things are created without any human interaction.
> fundamentally misunderstanding the arguments brought against AI media
Okay and you haven't engaged with the point that I'm making at all. It's different than the GP's. You also haven't given me any reasoning to backup your point that I am fundamentally misunderstanding the arguments brought against AI media. You want reasons why and I want reasons why. Let's engage in a civil manner.
The point that we're engaging on, really, is not the GP's. It's what computerliker said about how "a computer can never be sad or horny or have taste. it can only make product" and that "having less media [created] by a computer is a loss".
Nothing to misunderstand there and I disagree strongly on both the implications of the first and the conclusion of the second quote. That's what I'm attempting to address and not every possible argument ever made about AI creations.
So, do you still think that I'm misunderstanding something? Also, what about my point? Do we really want fewer things created by random and/or automated processes simply because a human didn't create them? I don't think so.
lisp people will be in awe
reply