Have you considered that when people use the phrase “increase diversity,” they mean across the entire medium? That a movie or book can have, in a vacuum, a fairly limited cast, but if that cast is otherwise unrepresented across film or literature it does increase diversity?

I'd much rather have a diversity of stories with appropriate casting than artificially-induced representation via race-swapping cast members. By all means, use diverse casting for modern and future-facing stories, but give me fewer black elves and asian dwarves in old, exclusively European stories and more stories from Asian, African, South American, etc. cultures.

As a small example: I'd love to see more about Anansi, the African spider trickster god elevated into mainstream media. I can only recall him appearing in American Gods and an episode or two of Gargoyles in the 90s.

Honestly, I'm less concerned with the initial wait and more concerned about how this is run entirely through Google Play Services, leaving Google with the ability to alter the deal next time they have another benevolent security decree.

Well it's a Google Play protect feature, so it's blocked by google, not standard Android

Citogenesis specifically refers to a citation loop. This is just lying on the internet

Yea, I started out thinking "well you just use the thing to find citations." Then I realized all this article is just: "I lied on the internet and people believed me, isn't that crazy!?!"

This type of behavior is why gatekeeping institutions exist. We all pay a non-trivial cost because someone thinks that other people taking their lies seriously is somehow remarkable. It's not.

Research is hard work. Publishing fake research is just intentionally throwing wrenching into the machine of academia. All you've done is reinforce the need for gatekeepers (which never went away), show that some no-name journal isn't rigorous (they often aren't), and you've wasted a bunch of people's time demonstrating why institutions exist, when we know why they exist.

Genuinely terrible behavior.

Radicle has been one of those projects that had seemed interesting, but something always bothered me about it. (I think it was very highly tied to the cryptocurrency movement for a while? And the Cyphernet GitHub org seems to have rebranded from a DAO?)

This, unfortunately, kinda seals the deal on never using this thing, at least not for anything I intend to keep private. This isn't about proficiency in some protocol which has XYZ footgun: they never checked that payloads were encrypted. Ridiculous.

This is explicitly the problem people notice with LLMs. The text they produce sounds fine only if you are so ignorant of the subject that you can’t properly read it yourself. That’s not a “boon” it’s a flaw.

Please link some of the mathematical research which concludes takeover of Earth’s resources by a superintelligent agent is “very likely.”

This is a very token-brained take. The length of a work has no bearing whatsoever on its comprehensibility.

I truly don't get why people have so much reverence for Pluto. And, unlike something like "fruit," which has a botanical and culinary definition which serve different purposes, I really don't get why anyone would care about the non-scientific definition of planet. Maybe I'm just ignorant here: what's the cultural significance of some celestial object being considered a planet?

Some people simply like to be a contrarian to the official or consensus position, Pluto itself has nothing to do with why some people are irrationally upset about its.

being selective about who you provide free services to makes you an activist group?

Yes, see, if you sell guns, but you only sell guns to people who promise to use them for defense, but don't sell them to people who promise to murder, that makes you an activist gun seller and personally responsible for whatever happens with those guns.

Either you wanted to be sarcastic or your simile did not work well.

That simile captures perfectly the logic here. I don't think it's technically sarcasm

EDIT: a better simile would be if guns were giving away for free. You can see how that could be construed as increasing the responsibility of the provider if a receiver then does something illegal with it

I really do not see that responsibility. It is so perplexing, so odd a perspective that some of you are advancing, that I could (jokingly, I understand good intention) call it resembling "gaslighting" from here - do you know, for example, in the series Parks and Recreation the topos of Ben not understanding why Li'l Sebastian would be a big deal?

I'll repeat a few of similes I used, with this latest: somebody giving guns away for free would be /less/ responsible if he screened the receivers first; somebody serving drinks would be /less/ responsible if he checked the costumers first; somebody in possess of a hammer would be /less/ responsible if he lent it to known vetted people instead of just anyone...

I get it that some see that cases for the opposite exist, but I would need a strong example because those provided made me strengthen the view I advanced instead of seeing an acquired responsibility on those who select their customers.

Don't get me wrong, I also don't see it personally. I just think that the framing is useful: it highlights how our society has a bias towards business and a bias against morality-driven initiatives

If selling the weapons is "ok" because business must be allowed because the motive is purely selfish (I just want to make a living for myself and my family), and giving away weapons is "suspect" because "you clearly have an ulterior motive", if just means that we live in a world where selfishness is the norm being altruists is suspect.

I think this is the core divide of our society, much more useful than the obsolete "left" and "right" divide

The metaphor is ridiculous and that's the point. GP is saying the GGP's argument is just as ridiculous

As a second factor of authentication, a one-time passcode is supposed to be “something you have,” which is still satisfied when stored in a password manager. It no longer serves as a preventative in the event your password manager is compromised, but it’s still fine if any individual password is.