I won’t disagree with what you said, but I’ll disagree that it’s the same point I was making.

My point was that there isn’t a technical solution to traffic congestion. You need less fluid or a bigger pipe. What you correctly mention is why a bigger pipe won’t work for humans when it does for water.

And out of pure pedantry, I’d disagree purely because my analogy said “non-newtownian liquid” - those don’t expand. :P it’s more like a hyperactive toddler manically jamming silly putty into a PVC pipe.

Traffic congestion doesn’t happen because of lack of coordination. Coordination prevents collisions. Our success rate could be a lot better but the system does pretty well with coordination limited to blinking lights, a noise that says “fuck off”, the mutual knowledge that we all got the same training and the private knowledge that everyone else on the road is a suicidal idiot who slept through the training.

Congestion is a physical property of the road network. There’s a physical limit to the number of cars you can push through a road in a given time period. Drive the cars too fast and they fly off the road when it bends, or cars slam into each other when a deer tries to commit suicide.

Traffic is well modeled as an incompressible slightly non-newtownian fluid, like runny oobleck. If you apply more pressure/increase vehicle volume the fluid starts to bind up as it becomes harder for the cars to maneuver without collision, regardless of coordination.

You reduce traffic by taking cars off the road, or scheduling utilization. Self driving cars won’t help, and we can do both of those without them. Long term they’re likely to make collisions worse because humans don’t know what they’re going to do, so the primary mode we have of coordination, “the theory of mind” will break down. Right now they’re so uncommon that you assume any car is a human who reacts and prioritizes like you.

Tear down the freeways and replace them with trains.

True, but that’s not just humans. We just drink less poop water so we’re behind on the immunity.

Yup, that’s thought to be one of the main reasons we domesticated dogs. They could keep up, so they earned their keep, and because we anthropomorphize everything it was obviously only fair we share with them.

And the person you replied to never said what they said was racist, just that they were mouthing off like a racist piece of shit.

Of course, we all know that they were calling them a racist piece of shit. Kind of like how we all know the other poster was being a racist piece of shit because they were saying the same racist shit about Detroit that racist shit bags always say about Detroit.

You don’t have to try to cover for obvious racist dog whistles.

What, to you, constitutes “shitty”? I’m seeing people giving feedback on their question. The person you specifically responded to and called shitty and self centered just told OP their motivations were childish and their father was pretty reasonable in his request, given the circumstances.

So no, not as shitty as you want just because they asked, but “not being an echo chamber” isn’t shitty.

So yes, I have the gall.

Almost certainly.

They don’t have to, since it’s not a part of the system that it requires them to hold onto the information, but they all invariably hold onto the information to keep training on it, which includes your personal information.

They are likely not using for selling to other people or anything since that’s not their business model at the moment, but it’s probably finding it’s way into the next version in some capacity.

I mean, they literally asked how people felt about skipping their father’s funeral for the given reasons.
If their reasons are childish and disrespectful you can’t really get mad at people for sharing that.

Sure. But also: planning a funeral and communicating your funeral wishes is also for the living, which the father is. and respecting the deceased by honoring their wishes is also for the living, since it’s how we help solidify the norm that we respect people’s final wishes.

Demanding they do it your way is shitty and self centered.

Yeah, how dare that fucking asshole ask his son to attend his funeral just because he cares about “family” or something. It’s like he doesn’t understand that his sisters might ask some slightly uncomfortable questions or gossip!

You’re right that funerals are for the living. They’re a place for the living to grieve, mourn and honor the deceased. Acting like it’s shitty or self centered for someone to express an opinion about their funeral or what’s important to them is honestly disgusting.
The man isn’t asking his son to deal with someone who traumatized him, or violated him in some way: he just doesn’t like the aunts. That’s like refusing to attend the funeral because you just really hate waking up early if you don’t have to.

Also interesting is that it’s one of the small number of unquestionably public domain pieces of software. Not open source, but public domain. It’s not entirely clear if you can technically put your own work in the public domain, or if you’re just freely licensing it to anyone.

Sqlite was initially developed for the US military though, which explicitly makes it public domain.

It doesn’t matter, but it’s interesting.

My dad had a prosthetic leg, and he bristled at some of the polite or accepting ways that people would talk about disability in a way that stuck with me because he explained it. Basically a dislike of “handicapable” or the notion that you “make up for it” in other ways. To paraphrase: “getting my foot cut off in a car accident didn’t come with some perk that balanced things out”.

I think a lot of the pushback you got came not from a place of rejecting that they could have a bias, but from the topic being broached as a confrontation of bias instead of an explanation of ignorance.
People, like the poster above, who are being conscientious according to their understanding will get indignant or frustrated when that’s met with an unmatched response.

Assuming positive intent colors implicit “positive abelism”, or other “positive -isms” that I’m personally less knowledgeable about, as unfamiliarity or ignorance rather than callousness or rudeness.
In those cases, the person is very unlikely to disagree or pushback if informed about their blind spot. The key part in their head was “disabled people are just as important”, sitting right next to “good people chip in and contribute”. So they respond to “disabled people can’t always contribute” with “disabled people are important!” phrased as "disabled people can contribute!”.

Addressing it as a bias against disabled people doesn’t fit because that part is correct. Need to address it at where the problem is: a misconception about the relationship between human worth, labor and utility.

You are correct that I was not describing capitalism.
I was participating in the silly by creeping closer to full communism and still saying it’s something else.

And I’m not sure why Benny would only get half and 2/3s respectively. They owned the truck, so they’re the one that did the moving. The others are just employees.

Honestly it’s both. Plenty of people with disabilities have plenty to offer. A lot actually don’t though, and they still deserve that helping hand.
A family aquatintance has some mental and physical disabilities. They’re just not going to be able to help in any way that isn’t superficial. And that’s okay. Their worth isn’t defined by their utility.

Attaching how worthwhile it is to help someone to their ability to provide a service inherently says the person who can’t isn’t worthy of help.

We should be good to people because it’s the right thing to do, not out of the expectation of a future repayment. More pragmatically, we should help based on the assumption that the other person would, and that if everyone acted like that the world would be better.

I think the other person read a bit much into it, but their base point isn’t wrong.

But see, it’s not fair if people just get what they need! You need to make sure people are paying for it!

We can make it part of the system that each person gets help according to their needs, but each person also gives help according to their abilities. Yes yes. This is now definitely capitalism because it’s transactions.

The feeling sick part is your immune system. :) Most of the feelings we associate with getting sick are the immune response rather than the actual sickness.
The tired feelings are your body telling you to stop moving because it’s busy, and also burning energy doing stuff. Joint pain is mostly various tissues getting puffy to make it easier for immune cells to move around. (For sickness. Crunchy ankle is different)

The first two were staggered to maximize the immune response if I recall right, and they also had a bit more kick to them that we tapered down as we learned more about how it all worked.
By the time the next round came about everyone had internalized the vaccine, been exposed and just kicked the living shit out of the virus a few times, and the virus mutated to be a bit weaker.

A wise man once said:

You can drop a mouse down a thousand-yard mine shaft; and, on arriving at the bottom, it gets a slight shock and walks away, provided that the ground is fairly soft. A rat is killed, a man is broken, a horse splashes

The traditional method would be to define the scope and intent of the law, and then defer the specifics of enforcement to an executive agency for nuanced application. That way the law conveys “no usage of information passed to a machine learning model for the purposes of generative content production, nor the output of any such system, should be considered fair use under copyright law unless the usage is non commercial and qualifies as fair use for academic or research purposes”. Then someone like the FCC would determine what qualifies as a machine learning model, and can flex to account for changes in technology.

You basically just say what you mean very specifically. I don’t think it’s a problem for Google to download webpages and track how they connect and their words, because that’s how search engines work. So I’m okay with that. I’m okay with individuals downloading chunks of the public web to do normal things. I’m okay with people needing huge swaths of the text for research, as well as the images, even for specific research into generative AI of the type we’re talking about. No one is being harmed by someone at MIT incidentally creating farside comics.

Harm or no harm, the disagreeable part to me is the commercial use of the model trained on inputs from people who didn’t want you to do that, sometimes without even having the most superficial justification to have the content in the first place.

Given we’re in a thread about biometrics being the opposite of privacy and security, it really does seem relevant to me that the threat model where they would be insufficient and the one where that would matter is basically empty.

If your thought process is “I need to protect this from the police and a determined or sophisticated criminal, but I can’t be bothered to use anything more than my lock screen on my phone”… Well, you’re already starting from a pretty bad place.

Yeah, and if you’re being robbed they’ll probably fuck you up pretty badly if you don’t. While not mind readers, they don’t have to be.

In most cases anyone who wants to beat your pin will just watch you unlock your phone. They don’t need to see the exact numbers: you can pick most of it up just based on relative finger motion. Looking at screen smudges gives another set of hints that are pretty trivial to extract.

If your goal is to keep it from the police, your best bet is to use an entirely different system than rely on your phones lock screen.

I can’t think of a scenario where I’m thinking both “biometrics are insufficient to safeguard this data” and “it’s appropriate to keep this data on my telephone”.

Sure, all that’s true. But which of those criticisms doesn’t also apply to a password or preshared key? Other than size of key-material, but it’s a fast enough communication medium that any key less than a megabyte is effectively zero.

I probably don’t need to point out how basically every communication on the Internet is based on public key crypto that we don’t even think about, but I want to ask how you get your shared key to websites when you visit?
Do you use any tools like signal, telegram and so on?

My point isn’t that public key systems are perfect, far from it. It’s that it’s wrong to say security and usability are contrary to one another.
People who think the public key solution is cumbersome are often comparing “no security” to “ideal security”.

For public key to be secure from man in the middle you need a trusted out of band channel or attestation scheme.
For a symmetrical key system you need the same channel.
Without that channel public key has a message interaction where an attacker can swap in their key but is otherwise secure. The symmetric key system is entirely broken.

“Easy case” public key systems are usually a fair bit more secure than a similar level of effort in other schemes, and likewise a given level of security confidence is easier to get to with public key than a password.

Finally, and most importantly: your phone quite likely supports multiple levels of authentication.
You can get into my phone if you have my fingers. This let’s you see my calendar, emails and (many) other things. It doesn’t let you into all of my files, financial apps, or even device settings.