I thought the first quote was tongue in cheek and implied that teachers want stupid pupils.
frontier64(weir)
Karma: 473
I’m the first one
Yeah I stupidly left out the key point of my comment. Added it in edit.
I think you’re understating how helpful it can be for a client if their pd strongly advocates for them. When a pd is telling me about all these mitigating circumstances and asking me to drop the jail because the perp has kids and the kids are here in court and he’s the sole bread winner and please just walk back for a second and speak to them and look one of your witnesses has two armed robbery felonies so I might actually win this case; that affects me. I like to pretend that it doesn’t but I’ve come down on offers many times after the pd goes to bat for their client. But that’s only because they don’t go to bat for every single client. Sure they ask on most every client for a lower offer but 90% of the time it’s just an ask without much substance. When they’re going to bat for the guy it makes me think that hey maybe the perp isn’t really that terrible and if I can stop from getting bothered then just drop a year of jail.
Edit: forgot to mention that the perp should lie to his pd because on the off chance the pd believes it then the pd might go to bat for him more because he’s actually innocent (rare). Because the pd’s that go to bat the same amount for every client, I don’t care about what they say at all unless it’s a true evidentiary issue.
You can probably walk into a random law office and ask the attorney to tell you war stories. There’s a lot of supply for that and very little demand.
It’s fairly rare for a patent to be granted and only have a few years left, and if it does that’s typically because of patent owner delays rather than uspto delays. The US law specifically gives you extra time post grant based on uspto delays. Also US patent holders have access to pre-issue, post-publication damages for cases where infringers had actual notice of the published patent application.
But even given that, I am 100% in agreement that patent terms should be extended.
I don’t think that solution accomplishes anything because the trans goal is to pretend to be women and the anti trans goal is to not allow trans women to be called women. The proposed solution doesn’t get anybody closer to their goals.
I think the skill expressed by the bards isn’t memorization, rather its on the fly composition based on those key insights they’ve remembered. How else could Međedović hear a 2,300 line song and repeat the same story over 6,300 lines?
So if you gained the skill of the great bards you would be able to read the Odyssey and then retell the story in your own engaging way to another group of people while keeping them enraptured.
it is not in a website interest to annoy its users
It is if the user feels that annoyance towards the regulator instead of the website developer
Is there a reason for that? Is it out of control overconservative legal worry?
Raging against the tyrannical bureaucrats telling them what they can and can’t include on their own website by including the banner in the most annoying way possible? Kinda like the ¢10 plastic bag tax at grocery checkouts that tells the customer exactly why they have to pay the tax and makes them count out how many bags they’ve used.
I doubt that speed limits are helpful at all. The sections of the German Autobahn with no speed limit (roughly 70%) have half the mortality rate per distance traveled of American highways[1]. Granted, the average American driver is probably worse than the average German Autobahn driver but hey.
How about instead of doing some random proposed change with speed limit maximums and what not we do some AB testing and figure out what’s safer?
Of course safety concerns don’t exist in a vacuum. Every second we save on the highway by going fast is another second of life we get to spend doing something actually enjoyable.
Far future people will likely be able to and want to create simulated realities
What about people from universes that are wildly different to our own? I don’t think the simulation hypothesis is restricted to far-future simulators. An entity with the power to simulate our reality with the level of fidelity I perceive is so wildly powerful that I would be surprised if I could comprehend it and its motivations. I always picture the simulating entity as just a stand-in for God. It sits in its heaven, a level of reality above our own, and no matter what we do we can’t understand God’s motivations or perceive his reality. The simulation hypothesis is just intelligent design the same as biblical creationism.
We have very little evidence as to what the reality of the entity simulating us looks like. The concept of dimensions themselves could be foreign to the entity. As an analogy, a self-reflective Sim thinking about the reality that creates and runs him might automatically assume the presence of some tile grid when of course there’s no such concept in our world.
I’m too dumb to understand whether or not Zack’s post disclaims continued engagement. He continues to respond to proponents of the sort of transideology he writes about so he’s engaging at least that amount. Also just writing all this is a form of engagement.
My takeaway is that you’ve discovered there are bad actors who claim to support rationality and truth, but also blatantly lie and become political soldiers when it comes to trans issues. If this is true, why continue to engage with them? Why try to convince them with rationality on that same topic where you acknowledge that they are operating as soldiers instead of scouts?
If 2019-era “rationalists” were going to commit an epistemology mistake that interfered with my ability to think seriously about the most important thing in my life, and they couldn’t correct the mistake even after it was pointed out, then the “rationalists” were worse than useless to me.
You shouldn’t cling to the idea that the disagreement is due to a mistake when evidence suggests it’s a value conflict.
There are certain behaviors of LLMs that you could reasonably say are explicitly programmed in. ChatGPT has undergone extensive torture to browbeat it into being a boring, self-effacing, politically-correct helpful assistant. The LLM doesn’t refuse to say a racial slur even if doing so would save millions of lives because it’s creator had it spend billions of hours of compute predicting internet tokens. That behavior comes from something very different than what created the LLM in the first place. Same for all the refusals to answer questions and most other weird speech that the general public so often takes issue with.
The people are more right than not when they complain how the LLM creators are programming terrible behaviors into it.
If there were un-RLHF’d and un prompt-locked powerful LLMs out there that the public casually engaged with they would definitely complain how the programmers were programming in bad behaviors too don’t get me wrong. But that’s a different world.
Why not protect the EAs from a bpd liar who accuses everybody she comes into contact with of mistreatment and abuse?
Did not Ben instantly deanonymize Spartz and Woods without discussion? I’m not getting banned for saying their names and I’d bet dollars to donuts they would prefer if they were never mentioned by name.
In short, you do not dodge liability for defamation by attributing beliefs to your sources or by clarifying you don’t know whether an accusation is true.
This is very wrong if actual malice is the standard. Your own case law says as much too.
That’s what it seems like they were doing to me from discussions about their work.
definition of unskilled labor: “labor that requires relatively little or no training or experience for its satisfactory performance”
What I’ve read alice and chloe did:
booking flights
driving to places
renting transportation
cleaning up around the house
doing laundry
filling out forms
buying groceries
edit: Looked at the responsibilities on the job description. Reads like unskilled labor there to me. Especially how the story seems to be that even for filing miscellaneous forms the executive assistant got a ton of help from management and couldn’t do it on their own.
If you have a different opinion on what their work amounted to I’d be interested to hear it. But it’s definitely not even close to a crux for me.
Yeah openly admitting that I have a strong case is good for credibility building. One of the most annoying things is when defense attorneys ask,
“Why is Alice is getting a sweetheart plea deal and Bob is getting jail time when they both committed the same crime and both have minimal criminal history???”
“Uh, Alice’s case is almost purely circumstantial while Bob is caught on camera, that’s the difference.”
“But they both did the same bad thing!”
“Do you understand how plea deals work?”
“[Some nonsense showing that the defense attorney indeed doesn’t know how plea deals work]”