Yeah, so that accounts for the grey being reasonable (although in some of these a arguably too large, if things are well established and people are unsure that’s because of groups spreading uncertainty)
The article is mostly focused on that red bar though
I wonder what you do about this.
I just started reading Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan, published in 1994, and the intro is basically saying the same thing but framed as curious people being more well read in Atlantis than they are in interesting recent science or critical thinking skills
For each statement, between 25% and 32% of respondents said they believed it, and another sizeable percentage (17–39%) said they didn’t know whether it was true. In total, 70% of respondents believed at least one of the claims (see ‘Divided views’). The findings, which have not been peer reviewed and were published today by the Edelman Trust Institute in New York City, were described as ‘staggering’ in an accompanying article by the think tank’s chief executive, Richard Edelman.
And it should end with “without the US”. Fuck the US and their center of the world bullshit, there are a lot of beautiful countries in the Americas
I just think a lot of them don’t think about the actions of their companies and are more focused on their income and promotion opportunities
I can’t believe this is so heavily downvoted for pointing out flaws in the expressed/written stance while still expressing they agree with the general position
That’s seems pretty reasonable, it just sounded in you post like you were so emotionally invested in how often security is used as an out that you were ignoring that the post you were responding to brought up some valid points about security for some segments of the population that aren’t as knowledgeable as you seem to be
I have wanted to transform things
I didn’t know how but it seemed possible. I searched and didn’t quickly come up with an answer.
I asked an LLM, and it gave me a confident answer.
I checked the man for the tool and the LLM had used creative writing to create the interface I expected should exist… but it did not exist.
I don’t know how you’re swapping or merging these basic facts:
I do think a “linux tutor” is one of the better use cases for LLMs for beginners, since you can quickly validate when its recommended commands are incorrect (but you still can’t quickly validate if its description of internals is misleading). I just think it falls apart as you start requiring more specialised things, or are at a situation where “this should exist” because the LLMs habitually make things up that sound reasonable to fill in the gaps in what the tools can do. That’s not an issue for beginners / the basics especially if there are lots and lots of tutorials the LLMs are sourcing from (although, that opens ethical issues too)
Agreed, but I think a framing or two is missing here, and it only applies to a subset, is that the people of the world shouldn’t have to deal with more/larger bot nets because these things haven’t been considered.
Another is just that the average great aunt isn’t opting into a concept of insecurity they’re simply ignorant to what threats there are. If it’s possible to distinguish between the two sets of people, or to maybe even bucket devices by potential threat, it might go a long away. I probably a lot wrong here, I just woke up.
But yeah, agreed security is an argument that’s hidden behind
Ahhh… what!?
Its linux, its faster to man the command or to type it. Point is that it usefulness to bullshit ratio for me in that situation was far too low
Kind of, but that would be a fault in the system that ideally would be charged. Maybe with some sort of verification to ensure they have the skills already. Maybe that’s even what this is abusing and they’re not examining enough / tolerant of LLMs yet. But agreed that is something a flaw with credentials
Any time I want to know if a linux command exists to manipulate data
This is one of the reasons I’m very cautious of my genAI use. Most of the time I got to the stage where I thought “there should be a command / way to do this” and I asked an LLM it would tell me the intuitive interface that I expected existed. But when I tested it didn’t exist, the answer had just been creative writing
Ahh… “rather” reads as a point contrasted to the comment? So what are you expecting comes after questioning why the oil subsidies still exist?
It seems to be evidence of vowels and consonants, not evidence for complex grammar like the title might imply
There are improvements but physics and chemistry kick in at some point. I don’t know enough to presume where that point is, but you seem to be presuming that the limits for sodium will be better than lithium and I’m not seeing any evidence provided, just faith. May as well work with the reality we have while we see how that pans out. Like someone else said, we recycle a lot of lead from lead batteries, we didn’t stop when lithium batteries came along
How is that the perfect example?
Shouldn’t it open up the question “why do these subsidies still exist and can we phase them out” not “subsidies are bad”?
Kickstarting new infrastructure is one place government money tends to work well. You can always phase out the subsidies and there is an argument that battery tech benefited from a feedback loop (used in phones until infra and tech was cheap enough for cars+) and something needs to kickstart that for their recycling, government stepping in to start that loop isn’t uncommon or as terrible as you seem to be making it out
Where is “libshit” written?
Why jump to tankie here?
It’s a pretty weak argument using a metric without historical numbers then claiming it means something.
It seems reasonable less people would be building a rig with the price crunch, but that survey and this article isn’t making much of a case for the argument besides emotional appeal