𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠

I’m surprised to hear GIMP crashed on you, I don’t think I’ve ever had it crash on me.

We’re not talking about basic biological functions here. We’re talking about issues that men and women may experience differently. This example is apples to oranges.

I see, but the point of the comic is that women don’t seem to agree with you and find that way of thinking about it fairly exasperating at times. In many cases there hasn’t been a serious attempt to address the issues raised, so claiming that you can’t address them without also addressing men’s issues would be perhaps a bit premature.

the direction I take to “steer it away” is to look at it as something universal, which is simply more helpful to understand why it happens, not to tie attention to men’s issues specifically.

I understand your intentions, but it doesn’t have the intended effect. By doing this you are making the assumption that the way women experience these issues is (close to) the same as the way men experience it. But you can’t really assume that, and often people disagree.

When women want to talk about problems they face, it’s important to hear them out and address their issue, instead of what amounts to ‘deflecting’ to a “grander” issue. At its core it’s a whataboutism that derails the conversation, and that’s not what you intended.

So my genuine advice is: don’t. Address these problems one by one. The solutions can often be different.

You have to assume that

I believe we’ve come at the point where women and men issues are so intertwined, so much permeating each other that it’s no longer helpful to see them as separate issues to begin with.

may well not be correct, and it can feel incredibly invalidating to people by assuming that this is the case.

As much as you may be right that both men and women are experiencing this, the post was talking about how women experience it. And when women speak out about it, it’s apparently hard to talk about just that and instead the male experience has to be discussed as well.

Again, I really don’t think you intended anything bad here. But as you said:

If all sides have an opportunity to say things without being interrupted, there is no point in chiming in and saying the other side has it worse.

Women try to talk about it (e.g. via this topic), but you interrupted by chiming in how men are also affected. That might well be true, but it’s also the kind of interruption that can be frustrating because, and I say this as a man, the experience women have is probably different (on average) from the experience men have.

You’re not one of the voices in the comic shouting “misandrist” or anything, but it is a kind of “and what about the men?” type of statement. And I don’t think you’re trying to be dismissive here at all and I do believe your intentions are good, but the result here is that what women want to talk about is once again not talked about, which is what the comic is about.

Your well-intentioned statement I think perhaps unbeknownst to you is steering the discussion away from the intended topic. And it’s exactly that problem that this comic addresses.

LinEUx

Funnily enough you’re in the comic. Not that I think you intended that.

LLMs work pretty well for narrowly-scoped questions like this.

Except the part where it said downloading videos is against their terms of service? Which was my only point?

Did you completely fail to read the part “except where authorized”? That bit of legalese is a blanket “you can’t use this software in a way we don’t want to”.

You physically cannot download files to a browser. A browser is a piece of software. It does not allow you to download anything

Ah, you just have zero clue what you’re talking about, but you think you do. I can point out exactly where you are on the Dunning-Kruger curve.

This is such a wild conversation and ridiculous mental gymnastics. I think we’re done here.

Hilarious coming from you, who has ignored every bit of information people have thrown at you to get you to understand. But agreed, this is not going anywhere.

Yes, by allowing you to download the video file to the browser. This snippet of legal terms didn’t really reinforce any of your points.

But it actually is helpful for mine. In legalese, downloading and storing a file actually falls under reproduction, as this essentially creates an unauthorized copy of the data if not expressly allowed. It’s legally separate from downloading, which is just the act of moving data from one computer to another. Downloading also kind of pedantically necessitates reproduction to the temporary memory of the computer (eg RAM), but this temporary reproduction is most cases allowed (except when it comes to copyrighted material from an illegal source, for example).

In legalese here, the “downloading” specifically refers to retrieving server data in an unauthorized manner (eg a bot farm downloading videos, or trying to watch a video that’s not supposed to be out yet). Storing this data to file falls under the legal definition of reproduction instead.

except: (a) as expressly authorized by the Service

Can you read?

No, that’s “Download to file” or “Download and save”. Just because some people like to refer to downloading and saving as just “downloading”, doesn’t mean that that magically now means that. You out of all people, who likes to rail against people using wrong definitions, should realise this.

The CS definition has never directly implied that downloading must also store the received data.

For example your second source says “downloaded over the internet” and since YouTube doesn’t allow you to download videos, YT videos would be omitted from that definition.

Everything on the internet is “downloaded” to your device, otherwise you can’t view it. It just means receiving data from a remote server.

I meant a library unknown to me specifically. I do encounter hallucinations every now and then but usually they’re quickly fixable.

It’s made me a little bit faster, sometimes. It’s certainly not like a 50-100% increase or anything, maybe like a 5-10% at best?

I tend to write a comment of what I want to do, and have Copilot suggest the next 1-8 lines for me. I then check the code if it’s correct and fix it if necessary.

For small tasks it’s usually good enough, and I’ve already written a comment explaining what the code does. It can also be convenient to use it to explore an unknown library or functionality quickly.

Nintendo has their own emulators for running these games on newer consoles.

Yes, but at least there they still use “Earth time”, just slowed down. For the moon it gets a little bit more complicated I guess.

Time moves at a different speed due to the moon’s reduced gravity. It’s not just the length of a day.

RFCs aren’t really law you know. They can deviate, it just means less compatibility.

What they didn’t prove, at least by my reading of this paper, is that achieving general intelligence itself is an NP-hard problem. It’s just that this particular method of inferential training, what they call “AI-by-Learning,” is an NP-hard computational problem.

This is exactly what they’ve proven. They found that if you can solve AI-by-Learning in polynomial time, you can also solve random-vs-chance (or whatever it was called) in a tractable time, which is a known NP-Hard problem. Ergo, the current learning techniques which are tractable will never result in AGI, and any technique that could must necessarily be considerably slower (otherwise you can use the exact same proof presented in the paper again).

They merely mentioned these methods to show that it doesn’t matter which method you pick. The explicit point is to show that it doesn’t matter if you use LLMs or RNNs or whatever; it will never be able to turn into a true AGI. It could be a good AI of course, but that G is pretty important here.

But it’s easy to just define general intelligence as something approximating what humans already do.

No, General Intelligence has a set definition that the paper’s authors stick with. It’s not as simple as “it’s a human-like intelligence” or something that merely approximates it.