We don't go birdwatching because we read somewhere that birdwatching is good for you.
We want to know what it is in birdwatching that registers as beneficial because if the factor(s) are distinct and isolated then the same benefits can be scaled outside of birdwatching.
And if you just went birdwatching because they said so, you wouldn't know why it might be beneficial to you. Or maybe there's a factor that wasn't identified separately and birdwatching itself doesn't improve your cognitive capabilities while, for many others, it supposedly does.
You would want to know you're getting benefits from whatever you decide to do if you're doing it in order to gain those benefits.
As a birdwatcher I strongly expect the benefit is in the identification experience and agree with this sibling comment:
> A big part of birdwatching is identifying small, fast-moving animals that exhibit specific combinations of behaviors at specific times of the year based on specific climatic conditions. That sort of rapidfire pattern matching from video and audio info is probably a big contributor to what keeps the brain sharp.
It takes time and experience to build up your identification skills but it’s really rewarding and exciting and modern tech makes it easier than ever to learn
If you find that sign up form, would you kindly post it here. I'd be interested too, but my googl-fu isn't very good apparently. The way the current administration is berating science funding, you'd think this would be something that is actually happening.
So, how's the suspension travel on this one? One of the key qualities of the original designed-barebones 2CV would be the long suspension travel and linked arms front and back.
Recycling fees for and managing packaging ought to be delegate-able to a packaging company. I.e. could buy a pre-made, EU-stamped and PPWR pair-for box of size WHD for a slightly higher price, put your stuff in it and ship it. The box already includes the whatever recycling fees and bureaucracy charges when the box was purchased by you. If you manufacture something complicated that requires you to roll your own packaging then you're responsible for the recycling fees but you probably can already deal with it at that stage.
In Europe the battery subsidies could've been used to double the price of electricity and make things worse for everyone paying for it. What a wasted business opportunity.
How does anyone accidentally give personal information to an LLM? Because either you don't in the first place (eh, I guess, most people?) or you do but for some specific, weird reason (I can't think of any but I guess these exist).
It could be useful more as a labor saving device to enable censoring while allowing the human to engage in easy copy-paste. Examples I think of are inclusion of internal DNS names, usernames and human names and email addresses that may be intermixed with log or command output needed to debug some issue.
That said, if these strings are really sensitive and I'm too lazy (or not trusting the human user) to self-censor, I'd not rely on this particular kind of tool for censoring. I'd use local LLMs or cloud LLMs where privacy is part of the contract.
As @frumiousirc said, it is mainly for the copy-paste case (e.g. you want llm to quickly check out contract terms for you without leaking the parties' identities.)
I have to say I find it amusing how a lot expect people to "not be lazy", people are mostly lazy and even sometimes clueless about how much they leak to BigCorps.
I've found plenty of scenarios where I'm providing logs and it contains a real name, personal info, etc. Stuff like file names, file paths, and little nuggets of information that can lead to an LLM or malicious actor profiling you.
Banks are probably the most Orwellian surveillance apparatus of all. Almost every time I read an arrest warrant there is a whole section where banking records are used to damn someone. The equivalent level of banking privacy to graphene is roughly walking in to the teller to withdraw a few thousand cash once a month and then paying literally everything with that (or an anonymized crypto).
Social media as it was born touched a novel point of contact that didn't quite exist before. It was a powerful shift from what we had before.
Social media allowed you to be in touch with people in a way that wasn't possible with phone calls, text messages, instant messaging, email, or domain-specific forums.
What I could do in Facebook in 2010 was stay "friends" with selected acquaintances such as old classmates with whom I never was in email terms, messaging terms, or any other terms except having known them in school (or at work or at a hobby or...) I could follow their life via their posts, and I could leave a comment, sometimes, without any expectation that we should ever talk, meet, chat, or become more than old classmates. I haven't sent email to anyone in my school that I didn't know outside of school, as a friend. I don't have their numbers and it would be awkward to even consider calling someone with whom we didn't necessarily even talk much in school. But it was perfectly okay to ask someone to be your friend on Facebook (like, Hey, I know you? and if he did remember he would accept) and follow their postings and maybe (re)kindle something with no pressure to grow it into anything more than that.
We had that. Now... we no longer do. Or we still have Facebook and we can send friend requests to old acquantainces that I'd like to follow but there's nothing to follow because they aren't posting and because Facebook wouldn't show me their posts. So we're back to the point where actually making contact with another person (on Facebook) basically requires sending them a message in Facebook. Which already goes beyond what's expected from an old acquantaince on Facebook.
I recall a site for classmates where you could register to your school years and see your classmates there. But that was before social media and there weren't any posts that you could comment. You could just see your classmates listed there, and one in ten might have written a few words in their profile. And that was classmates only, not ex-work colleagues or other people you've passed behind in your life. Facebook was really good at the time it became a thing.
We still have email, instant messaging, etc. but what's the platform today where I can keep in touch with people I'm not emailing or talking with? Is there one?
I consider Facebook to be the worst of all worlds. Frankly
They don't show you what your friends actually post. Someone saying "hey - I'm in the parking lot at some place, I need help moving this thing" 5 minutes ago? You might see it on your feed in a week
It's a company involved in lots of OTHER things which don't make it a good netizen https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10791198 (oh and their own cryptocurrency in Libra, that's fun)
Edit: You get banned at any time while the obviously horrible thing you report doesn't get taken down. That's not sustainable. It's not a thing where you can actually physically keep in touch with people, either nominally strangers or the best of friends
Meanwhile IG has hugely alienated -its- original target audience. My feed: "Reels. Suggested for you. Ad. Threads. Suggested for you. Ad. Followee. Ad. Threads." and 90% of it is short form video content, and even more annoying still content which is for some reason a 10s video.
Emission controls are the best scapegoat for Deere and others to lock down systems as tight as possible for profit. They don't care about emissions, the farmers don't care about emissions, the emissions happen on a fscking large field out of nowhere instead of rush hour city traffic, and tractors usually run at high power which makes a cleaner combustion with less soot (but higher nox): all in all, the world doesn't become a better place because of farm equipment DPF/SCR filtering. But emissions are the perfect mandate for manufacturers to make it impossible for the owners to own the equipment.
Judging by what I've seen on Reddit lately, lots and lots of people have stopped caring about their personal impact on the environment.
Why should we set the AC to 80 or be diligent about turning off lights when billionaires are flying in a private jet to go watch a football game and datacenters are popping up like Starbucks?
How can anybody tell a farmer they should probably care more about emissions?
I find this a very reasonable frame of mind. Systemic issues and failures cannot be fixed or addressed by individual action. They have to be addressed in a systemic way.
In some collective action problems, if everyone acts in their own individual self interest it results in worse outcomes for everyone. In those cases, it requires some central coordination.
Expecting individuals to care about anything is likely not going to end well. Large issues should be tackled in collectivized, centralized manner if you actually want to make a dent.
We want to know what it is in birdwatching that registers as beneficial because if the factor(s) are distinct and isolated then the same benefits can be scaled outside of birdwatching.
And if you just went birdwatching because they said so, you wouldn't know why it might be beneficial to you. Or maybe there's a factor that wasn't identified separately and birdwatching itself doesn't improve your cognitive capabilities while, for many others, it supposedly does.
You would want to know you're getting benefits from whatever you decide to do if you're doing it in order to gain those benefits.
reply