Volition has nothing to do with it. A breathalyser doesn't point to a person and say this is the likely drunk, so that comparison is fatuous. These identification systems do point the finger.
Only within the web page that's running it. Grammarly is often installed to the system and slurps up whatever it can, even when you haven't explicitly told it to. I think this was the article that illustrated its untrustworthiness:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30470457
Except "ye olde" was always "the olde", but for a time printing machines were produced outside of England and lacked the thorn "þ" character, so the y was used as a substitute.
Japan is never going to voluntarily attack China. Even if there was a desire to, they know they could not win. Any military build up by the former is due to fear of the latter.
Japan probably won't not attack China (I don't see why they would, not proactively at least), that's not what was being asserted. Japan however may defend Taiwan or allies/neighbors in the south china sea should things go hot there elsewise. And Japan have stated at least some interest in doing so which means that if China wants Taiwan, they might have to contend with japan.
These sort of things can work as a deterrent as much as power projection, and they don't have to get into direct violent/physical conflict for there to be diplomatic tension/worsening of relations as a result. I'm not saying this is most effective use of Japan's resources or focus or that China is for sure going to do anything or making any other such claims, just explaining the potential rational for why China would be non-plussed at Japan over F35 purchases even if they don't feel Japan is gunning for them.
Of course, if china has no actual wartime intentions in Japans sphere of influence, then yeah, they probably give much less of a shit. So depends on what their intentions really are as to how they feel about it. The fact that they're publicly broadcasting displeasure is probably not a sign that they're cool with it though.
Any protest from China is just painting themselves as being in a defensive position, whilst they make claims over the oceans and territories that the international community disagrees with. Very much not defensive acts.
Building up submerged reefs to military bases, harassing the Philippine navy regularly, massive fishing fleets strip mining the sea all over the world, melee weapon skirmishes with Indian soldiers in Kashmir ?
China has been strategically preparing to do it for years now. It's not just talk from a crazy leader of a democratic country that will be gone in a few years, but is on the official roadmap of a dictatorship for at least a decade.
You don't have to drop bombs to invade. If you think China's not invading with its economic policies and activity alone, you're not paying attention. I'm in no way saying western nations are not guilty of the same and worse behaviours (look at how many legitimate governments have been toppled and sanctioned for daring to go against the USA), but China is not friendly.
Because they ultimately are managing better in the 21st century than any other country. America had its peak from 1945 to 2001. Britain ran the world in the 19th century. China is the new global superpower.
In an ideal world America would have managed to keep a bipolar world going, but it has decided to abandon that in favour of short term boosts.
It does, and I already wrote about western countries being just as guilty of invading, if not more so. None of what you wrote contradicts my point that China is actively expanding and using mainly economic tactics to do it.
It's wild that people say this. Japan attacking China (and later the Western colonies, and later the US) knowing that it could not win was one of the most important events in the 20th century. There isn't a country as infamous as Japan for starting wars it cannot win.
Also that attack happened on Sept 18, this very day, in 1931.
Not so wild when you realise that it's not the 1930s, and Japan isn't being led by an imperialist & expansionist regime. I'm not denying any past aggression from Japan, my grandparents fought them, but the situation is quite different now.
Japan is very much still jingoistic today, and Jingoism is what drove the Lugou bridge incident and the seconds sino-japanese war. While it was imperialism that drove the invasion of Korea and Manchuria in 1931, with a real need for resources and to give land and slave to industrialists, the 1937 war was totally dumbfuckery from jingoist sentiments. Basically Trump, but supported by 85% of the population.
That's why fascism doesn't work btw. They end up believing their own lies and do the most egregiously idiotic shit.
All of the people responsible for that are dead now. Every single one. Maybe there are still 100k people alive that were ~5yo at the time, but I don't think we can hold them culpable.
>There's only a handful of critical details in a call history
And they're all there: profile pic, contact name, indicators that show incoming/outgoing + missed/connected, which SIM, a redial button, how long ago (which after about a week shows the date), Tapping the middle expands the row (no obstructive pop-up) to show Block, Message, & Details buttons.
The reason it has 'human times' is because multiple calls with the same contact are grouped, so a precise time doesn't always make sense. Tapping the Details will show all calls in that group, whether it's one or seven, with their full dates, times, durations, and further options. It's never been a difficult UX.
Thanks. There's no better way to check how it is than having it on hand.
I'd argue against relative dates because that's an opinionated design that requires cognitive overhead on the user. A young person might be able to mentally translate, but older ones tend to have it more difficult. Usually, opting for relative dates tells us about the designer's lack of experience with different groups of users than the normative one.
AI owned by a few companies is more likely to put the majority right back to serfdom. You're a privileged fool to believe that freedom is the likely outcome of the current stampede.
With a username that appears to cheer for a sociopath¹, I doubt reason will convince you.
It was obviously a sarcastic joke. I get it if you didn't catch that, but do you think my username glorifies Sam Altman? And is that a reason to talk negatively about me? You doubt reason will convince me? And at the end, you call *me* a privileged fool. Wow, just wow.
I hope you don't consider NWA a racial hate group given their name.
Also, I don't think you can cite a subjective take as objectively correct by including it as a footnote. Why do you need to medically diagnose him to say what he's doing is fucked up?
Why does he have to be literally the devil for outrage to work?
He could also not be a sociopath, but still his actions will be his actions, and it is okay to criticize them. Next what, you're going to link to an article that says Sam Altman is also a homosexual, and we must be morally outraged at that next? Because that is where your direction is going, instead of arguing about the ill effects of AI.
The comment and username in isolation probably wouldn't have elicited that response from me. In combination, I took you for a delusional ultra-fan.
I think anyone who genuinely thinks AI is a wonderful thing for everyone probably enjoys the privilege of its use, reducing their own workload, without it (yet) affecting their employment, or their local environment, and possibly even lacks the empathy to comprehend negative affects on others. Obviously I was mistaken for thinking you were as such.
Putting words in others' mouths doesn't give credence to your points, the only homophobia here is coming from you. Straw men are not your friends.
Sociopathy in the context of running a powerful organisation is entirely relevant because making decisions that affect many, without really caring about the consequences for them, is generally regarded as a bad thing.
How is homophobia coming from me? Also yes, sociopathy in a powerful organization is bad okay but you are not attacking sociopathy, you are attacking Sam Altman personally and claiming its bad because he's a sociopath (without any medical basis just circumstancial subjective opinion). Lets say fine, we remove him and every other bad CEO, what now? Do you think the system we have built will not put these type of people in power? Shouldn't our focus be on the actual issue, i.e. the factors that make these powerful companies do such awful things to actually change things? We can complain about the symptom (Altman) and blame them morally or because of personal reasons. But that doesn't heal the sickness. Just like murdering a CEO doesn't change healthcare in the US, calling a CEO sociopath undermines the actual wrong their organisation does.
I think (this is subjective opinion from my experience so take it as such and not something objective) but a lot of your want for a better world is also linked with your desire to shame and ridicule people. That is not a healthy outlook towards life imo. Not that what you think is wrong morally (i am on your side actually as you realised) but rather the relationship with the moral values. And its bad not because your outrage is fake or stupid but because that relationship is not good for the self eventually. I can think OpenAI is doing a lot of wrong things, I think Sam Altman is sketchy person who is definitely not a morally good agent but I don't need to hate him or get triggered by him. I also think if he just disappears tomorrow, there will no hit to the broader forces which we should actually protest against imo.
People sure are different. Your heart must be in the right place. The kind of post that includes:
> that relationship is not good for the self
I’d expect to come across, or read in my eyes, differently. Maybe more sympathetic, gracious, or kind, or I can’t think of the right word. Guess I see some bones one could throw to the interlocutor considering you probably share much of the same worldview.
Thanks for provoking some thought! I’ll come back to this one for another read and reconsider outrage & healthy outlooks on life.
Unless one wants interoperability with other people who use Apple and "Samsung" (because they don't know the word Android refers to an OS). It's a de facto standard now, whether you like it or not.
Indeed. I don't use most of the stock AOSP apps on Graphene because the UI is so awful, but there are decent alternatives so it hasn't been a bother. I'm looking forward to seeing their work.
reply