Monkeys at that time period were primed to pick up the first tool. If not that monkey, then another would’ve done it shortly afterwards.

One of my friends got a penicillin IV at the hospital, and the machine shortened it to “PENI5”.

With no additional context, if you said that “the balls in this glass are generally blue”, I would interpret that meaning every ball falls within the range of hues that can still be called blue by most people but may be questioned by a few. So 100% of the balls have to be “I can see why someone would call that blue”.

Financing is available for your $1 candy bars now.

Yes

So, did you do it?

I think they’re referring to random mutations. There’s no evolutionary pressure to get better at any of these skills, so at a population level, we’re unlikely to see any change. But at the individual level, it’s still possible through these mutations.

Not malicious in the sense that the intent isn’t to cause harm to us regular people. If buying those properties raised our prices and didn’t help them keep their money, they wouldn’t do it. If it didn’t raise our prices and helped them keep their money, they would still do it.

But does his boss have the authority to allow it?

You could say the same about people who used the early 2000s Google by entering full questions with natural language and clicking “I’m feeling lucky”. There are always going to be wrong ways to use a tool. But we’re discussing whether there exists a right way. And that right way includes verifying the information you receive, just like you would if you found it through a regular search engine.

The social and environmental costs are real. That’s not the criticism you gave and not what the responses are disagreeing with.

Willingness to look is a pretty important factor. LLMs reduce the personal cost incurred to look up information, similar to how search engines saved us from having to go to the library for every question we had.

We already had subreddit simulator for ages. This isn’t anything new.

Cloud housing when?

The poll didn’t even ask a real question. “Yes AI or no AI?” No context.

I’m familiar with udev rules. But it’s going to be more effort to write something that works with everything I might connect to than it is to just run xrandr each time. The way it is right now, it never fails and I don’t have to spend more than a minute tinkering with projector settings when I give a presentation.

Multi monitor has never been more reliable for me than it is on Linux. The downside is that it’s not automated and I need to connect/disconnect them through the terminal.

If that’s what you meant to say, then it would help to actually say that. Regardless, the argument doesn’t hold water. If Teams has poor support for older hardware and non-Windows operating systems when other apps don’t, then that’s a Teams problem. If it takes someone who specializes in Teams to be able to work with it effectively when other apps require minimal training, then that’s also a Teams problem.

So when you say “I believe in objective morality”, you mean that you believe morality should be objective, not that it is objective. I’m inclined to agree because that would certainly simplify life a lot, but unfortunately, you can’t just make morality objective any more than you can make gravity not exist. It is what it is, and we have to figure out a way to work with what we have.

Thanks, that’s good to know. I’ve been experiencing this too and I know T1 diabetes runs in the family, but I ruled it out because I thought it wasn’t a symptom of diabetes. I should check with a doctor.

So morality is relative in a society that doesn’t have a proper moral framework?