You've made a hypothesis, provided no basis for it, blew past that and built some more conclusions on top of it. Along the way you introduced a few more unsubstantiated thoughts.
The post in it's entirety reads as a religious rant, but it might have had something to offer to the reader if you had bothered to provide some sort of philosophical foundation for why you feel that the middle way is the superior way. And that all excess is inherently not only nearly identical in terms of effect, but by definition harmful.
This is a forgivable statement if you didn't read it, because then I guess you may not have seen that there's themes at play and a point being made. If you did read it I do not understand how you don't see how you are meant to dislike the summary judgement and the judgement itself being an effect of yet another plot point.
But then if you did not read it it seems a little disingenuous to say "this is a bad book", because you would not only not know but anything you did know you would not understand.
What is there in the story that indicates this judgment is wrong? Ron does not appear in the story again, while by the end Harry is an immortal superbeing. His arrogance is never once punished.
You can be a sexually predatory sociopath and still be of value in Yudkowsky's world, but like sports and you're dismissed in your entirely within a single paragraph.
> "Ah..." Harry said. This was very hard to say. "Actually, the rest of the world doesn't know this part, not even the Headmistress. But in point of fact you were one hundred and twelve percent correct about [spoiler], and I'll remember for future reference that although 'Dark' and 'evil' may not technically be the same thing, there's a great big statistical correlation."
> "Oh," said Hermione, and fell silent again.
> "You're not saying that you told me so?" said Harry. His mental model of Hermione was yelling: I TOLD YOU SO! DIDN'T I TELL YOU SO, MR. POTTER? DIDN'T I TELL YOU? [spoiler], I SAID, BUT YOU DIDN'T LISTEN TO ME!
It feels like most people who criticize the story didn't actually read it, and just start with the premise that Yudkowsky sucks at writing, then conclude that obviously Harry Potter must be Mary Sue, and that whatever Harry says is what Yudkowsky wants you to believe.
If you actually read the story, you will find out that many things that Harry said and believed turned out to be wrong. That ending was written by Yudkowsky, too. The characters that disagreed with Harry since the beginning, such as Hermione and Dumbledore, were written by Yudkowsky, too. Perhaps there is a little more depth in the story than if you assume that it must be a Mary Sue story.
Ah, yes, the ending where the invincible Superman uses his gigabrain to singlehandedly save humanity, end death itself, get the girl (and turn her into an immortal magical unicorn princess (yes, really, this story is dumb)), vanquish a dozen Wizard Hitlers at once, and tear apart entire stars for their raw resources shows that he paid the price for his earlier arrogance.
I have read the story in its entirety. Don't ask me why. The fact that our Lord and Savior holds the idiot ball on occasion does not make him realistically flawed. The fact that Voldemort would have realistically been exposed within thirty seconds makes the story dumber, not smarter.
Also, you ignored the question I actually asked: where does Harry realize that it is wrong to steamroll everyone he thinks is stupid?
Is this some sort of avant-garde sarcasm that is meant to be funny? I'm genuinely asking, I am having trouble modeling a live human being that reads any amount of llm-related news and says this without it being facetious.
It's an observation of how people respond to marketing. Apple objectively dragged their feet on LLM software and hardware research. After 3 (!!!) years we finally have a good LLM Siri, and the first note that this guy makes is "oh it's ethical" to cover for Apple's wasted time.
I find it pretty funny, but the author probably doesn't. Americans ought to know better than to utter "ethical" and "Apple" in the same breath.
If you want some input; I have to assume you are getting downvoted because you are posting a vague unsubstantiated criticism that isn't particularly interesting and while perhaps a little germane also does not invite further conversation (you've essentially posted "I don't like this". What exactly is anyone else meant to do with this?).
the problem is it was a very interesting situation, but as usual I dont want to be too clear about it, to protect identities, but as as happened before, I get downvoted or told " without evidence I dont believe you".
Im not saying you are wrong its just I guess I wont bother as much, I just sometimes feel compelled to try and notify the community sometimes of something that was odd / of interest, but increasingly its just not picked up on.
At some point I wonder if its worth the effort.
But perhaps some readers pick up on it and figure things out.
Large exchanges handle this very simply: If they have the keys, it goes to the inheritor(s) once they get a court order. If they do not, it goes nowhere
There are plenty of legends of old wallets "waking up" due to the person getting out of prison, as it seems the only plausible way someone can sit on 30 BTC for 10-15 years, through all the news and price movements, without touching it once. One would only expect to hear about the successful seizures law enforcement makes.
Pretty much everyone. There's a reason people lost money with ftx, Mt gox and other scams.
Managing your private keys is cumbersome, error prone, requires some computer literacy, the list goes on.
Tbh I have been kind of impressed by how fast L2 businesses brought back centralisation in every possible way. I guess it's more efficient for them.
In the same way, the internet was supposed to be decentralised, everyone being in charge of their own servers. But in practice nobody has the time to set up their own MX servers.
> You've used gift cards before right? The whole point is that you can't convert them to cash.
This is very untrue - there's a ton of services that do this and while it is against the ToS sometimes, there's plenty of place where ToS of this type are not legal and so you are perfectly within your rights to resell a gift card for money.
This is not laundering, it is in fact exactly as the service was meant to be used. As long as you save where the money comes from and where it goes you are at worst operating a discount pseudo-bank. But that's what google is also doing, so we can infer that this is okay.
They were essentially just huge steaming piles of shit.
What you are describing was true at the time for Linux. It was an absolute bear to set up (at the time of win95/98) if you had anything unusual but once it ran it ran.
This has never been true for windows although the reasons why have shifted over time: it used to not work primarily because it was just shit. Now it additionally doesn't work because it is actively malicious.
I am writing this from the perspective of someone who is regularly forced to use Microsoft's products for work. I am familiar with the subject matter.
Random existing Windows bugs breaking things, third party software breaking things on install/uninstall, and bloat causing problems are very different from Microsoft forcing an update that introduces new flaws in windows and breaks Windows in ways that had been previously working.
Windows was always buggy as hell, but windows updates didn't break windows as often and most importantly they were also optional. For decades people would go online on Patch Tuesday to look to see if people were reporting problems with the newest round of Windows updates. Maybe there'd be a problem with an update and a specific network card, or a certain video driver, but Windows didn't usually break Windows.
Even if it did, you at least had the option to just not update. These days Microsoft doesn't care about problems with their updates. Even when they are warned ahead of time that there are problems they're happy to shove them down our throats, at any time of the day or night, and break Windows or even delete your personal files (https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/10/microsoft-suspends-d...) in the process.
Out of all the vague and unprovable things that never happened, that one never happened the most.
I'm sure you can find users on any OS complaining with "random" breakages but unless you can show any data that proves it was due to the OS and not your HW or third party apps or your own actions, this means nothing.
Very cool. Of course we both understand that this is the case - this is why it is in scare quotes. You are arguing about something I literally acknowledged in my original post. The issue is that it happened due to what is for all intents and purposes bitrot: It breaks during regular use due to small compounding errors that happen due to bad software design. In practical use this means what I wrote, even though to the most pedantic of nerds it means literally what happened. It can in fact mean both things
Given that you know these terms you must be aware we have invented different words for organisms that have mixed effects (positive and negative) on the host organism. Parasite, commensalist and symbiote. If you don't want folks who know these words to argue with you you should not use the wrong ones.
Feel free to explain how the labels change the facts. Examples of beneficial effects have already been cited from "scientific literature".
The argument was only to point out that just because labels are black & white doesn't mean life is black & white, and treating a label as reality is stupid.
No one went so far as to say "everyone should go get hookworm". That would also be a stupid thing to say, and more to the point: a stupid thing to think anyone was saying.
The post in it's entirety reads as a religious rant, but it might have had something to offer to the reader if you had bothered to provide some sort of philosophical foundation for why you feel that the middle way is the superior way. And that all excess is inherently not only nearly identical in terms of effect, but by definition harmful.
reply