chaircat @ chaircat @lemdro.id Posts 2Comments 55Joined 2 yr. ago
I see a lot of people online saying this kind of thing, though I gotta wonder if it's mostly old people who can't adapt new paradigms.
I would never buy a computer without touch anymore. The thing the ergonomics argument misses is just because you have touch doesn't mean you can't use a mouse (or touchpad) also when it makes more sense. Tiredness is never an issue for me.
There are some things that are just infinitely more natural with touch, using an electronic device that lacks touch just feels like using incredibly outdated technology to me now.
Stay intellectually humble. It's a huge component of wisdom in my observation. Understand you can always make mistakes that can be corrected, and that you have arrived at your opinions through limited information that can always be supplemented, so stay open to both of these possibilities.
You can be confident in your opinions that you arrived upon through spending a lot of effort thinking about them, and you don't need to have self doubt when challenged on them baselessly. But when someone does point out an error or something you missed, it's essential you haven't become closed to accepting it.
Always remember what the basis are for your opinions and how well-founded they really are. For example: how much do you actually know about a thing when you're relying on something you read in the news? How much do they really know about that thing?
As a check on yourself believing you've put a lot of effort into thinking about something, be on the guard for unwarranted confidence. If a professional has put their efforts into something in their field of expertise they've spent their whole lives working on, chances are you haven't thought of something they haven't in the first five minutes of hearing about their work. That might seem ridiculous, but you see this all the time on Lemmy, where for example commenters seem to think they've figured out key errors in scientific papers after reading a single popular science article about an experiment or figured out solutions to incredibly complex problems like fair taxation.
There's a better translation right here in this thread. "Hurting our relationship" is not so literal and so doesn't sound daft in English.
It feels shady the way the media uses this overly literal translation of 'hurt the feelings' all the time in order to make the Chinese sound ridiculous. Could make any foreign language speaker sound ridiculous by cherry picking funny but common phrases and translating them literally.
Your phone keyboard statistical engine is not a very insightful comparison to the neural networks that power LLMs. They're not the same technology at all and just share the barest minimum superficial similarities.
I hate the cynical nihilism around here so much. It plays into the Republican and big business hands so well it might as well be propaganda.
We had net neutrality before under the Democrats. The Republicans got rid of it when they took power.
Bothsidesism is juvenile bullshit.
Good article, but it doesn't support your thesis that the sanctions are about China hacking at all. The idea they've managed to achieve this through hacking to steal technology is completely non-existent in the article.
Wouldn't this justify vandalizing any type of machine whatsoever? Get in an elevator and nobody is looking? Stab the control panel so they have to get a human in the future making the elevator. See a car and no one is looking? Set it on fire so they have to use a human pulled rickshaw instead.
Wow that seems like a strange permission to have as default. It doesn't seem like very many apps have a legitimate need for listing other installed apps unless I'm missing something.
How are they managing to do this? Surely it requires a permission in Android to access the list of installed apps, right?
That's an axiom that people always just themselves by their intent and others by their actions.
This leads to excuses for themselves and harshness on others until proven otherwise.
I've been trying lately to internalize my understanding of this to fight my natural impulse to fall into this universally human trap. Basically, be a kinder person by judging the actions of others by considering plausible reasons they may have had for doing something that rubs me the wrong way. Also the opposite, and being understanding when someone flips out on me for something I did because they don't have access to all of my mental state that led me to that point.
There are a lot of bed frames that are solid, though, including the one I use at home. If it causes any ill effects on the mattress I haven't observed it personally.
I recall Dorsey publicly coming out in support of Elon's Twitter well after the sale. Maybe there was no ethical conflict for Dorsey and he likes what he sees.
Yeah, maybe all of this wouldn't have happened if the equity was split among the employees.
This is an astonishingly well written, nuanced, and level headed response. Really on a level I'm not used to seeing on this platform.
I don't think waving away being a Luddite just by saying so makes it so.
I can't think of a single angle of principled moral theory that makes this okay. Vandalizing or stealing someone else's property they paid for. Hurting both the restaurant and the customer by depriving them of their food. Holding back progress on an invention that can reduce the need for humans to engage in a type of work that is hard, dangerous at times, and low paid.
From a purely rational on paper view, it doesn't look terribly different than saying vandalizing or stealing from delivery vehicles driven by people isn't wrong. What possible justification could there be for this view besides Ludditism fuck robots?
Unsolicited notification spam ads is in pretty poor taste for a major brand. Doesn't seem wrong to me to infer their sales department is getting desperate if they're resorting to that.
Again, just anti consumer bullshit spearheaded by Apple and gargled by Samsung.
Samsung was actually one of the later Android manufacturers to drop it is my recollection.
I used to do this. I thought it was awesome but I was literally the only person I ever knew who did this. It was not a popular thing to do.
That's fair as a definition of genocide, though it isn't the way I'm used to understanding the word.
Precisely because of the differences though, I'd also find it in poor taste to make comparisons been the Canadian genocide against indigenous peoples and the Holocaust.
I'll go against the grain here and say I do think it's antisemitic, for precisely the reason outlined in the parent comment, even though they themselves are also giving you a pass.
The genocide against the Jews, the Holocaust, was a situation where they were rounding up every single member of the ethnicity they could find in order to exterminate them.
Even though we use the same word genocide for the Uighurs, no credible authority I've ever come across is alleging that is what is happening in Xinjiang. Uighurs still openly populate the province and roam the streets publicly.
To compare them like this is to directly downplay the Holocaust in order to make a point on the Uighurs. In fact, I'd also say the widespread use of the word genocide for the Uighurs is the same, for reasons we're seeing from the reactions of everyone else in this thread.