It’s just a tighter grouping of (biased) data that can be searched and retrieved a bit quicker.

How is your intelligence different from being “biased data that can be accessed”?

The fact that something can reason about what it presents to you as information is a form of intelligence. And while this discussion is impossible without defining “reason”, I think we should at least agree that when a machine can explain to you what and why it did what it did, it is a form of reason.

Should we also not define what it means when a person answers a question through reasoning? It’s easy to overestimate the complexity of it because of our personal bias and our ability to fantasize about endless possibilities, but if you break our abilities down, they might be the result of nothing but a large dataset combined with a simple algorithm.

It’s easy to handwave the intelligence of an AI, not because it isn’t intelligent, but because it has no desires, and therefore doesn’t act unless acted upon. It is not easy to jive that concept with the idea that something is alive, which is what we generally require before calling it intelligent.

You’re missing the point. The issue with Fahrenheit is not about the conversion from Celsius, most Europeans don’t need to do that anyway. The problem is Fahrenheit in itself, it’s just not elegant or scientific and therefore comes off as arbitrary and only makes sense when you grow up with it.

Ah yes, “we did good but they messed it up, as usual!”

If the US cared enough about the well-being and the services the people have access to in the nations they invade, they would probably not do the invading bit.

Haha, I get it, it’s totally fine!

I don’t think it’s funny, because the joke is illogical. If he is a teacher in a University, and it looks like it, that it is his job to mansplain.

So close. You seem to have Sheldon levels of understanding sarcasm.

It’s just a simple joke about the term being misapplied to an everyday setting.

I would advise avoiding things with sucralose.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8880058/

It’s a bit late to worry about internal mics when everyone has their phone on them at all times.

Do you mean malware?

Am I the only one who fails to see anything seriously wrong with what you list there? I’m purposefully ignoring “misinformation spreading conspiracy theorist”, because that’s a pretty meaningless accusation and is often added as an easy character assassination rather than something substantial, but I’d like to see you elaborate.

I mean, we’re talking jail time and extradition, and nothing you’ve mentioned is even against the law in the slightest. Yes, there was piracy on his file sharing site, but that’s true for practically any service on the internet, from Google drive to Amazon S3 and anything in-between and vaguely related.

Characters like him are targeted because they are both successful and anti establishment, the eccentricity just tops it off. But why should that result in a lack of sympathy? The world doesn’t have enough of these people who rock the boat if you ask me.

Oh right, so you were talking about the content, that’s not what I understood under “frontend”. Thanks for clearing it up.

I don’t have any experience with the platform, so I’m not in a position to judge their decisions, but it’s always tricky when you present yourself as censor free. There’s things you obviously don’t want on your service, but if it falls within the legal realm, it is no longer a matter of “will we block Nazi material” but whether from that point onward you start taking a moral and political stance.

Things get incredibly tricky and cumbersome if you choose that route, not just from an administrative perspective but also technically. I can understand why the people who operate the platform would prefer to primarily use legality as a deciding factor, as not every ideological issue that you open yourself up to if you take the other route is as straightforward as fascism.

Guys, just because the backbone of your site is decentralized doesn’t mean your centralized frontend can’t be modified by you.

I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Did you mean can be modified? Or what does this have to do with Nazi rhetoric? Maybe you have a different idea about the word “frontend”?

“Figured it was a bad idea” actually means that some people were against it because they believed semantic class names were the solution, I was one of them. This was purely ideological, it wasn’t based on practical experience because everyone knew maintaining CSS was a bitch. Heck, starting a new project with the semantic CSS approach was a bitch because if you didn’t spend 2 months planning ahead you’d end up with soup that was turning sour before it ever left the stove.

Bootstrap and the likes were born out of the issues the semantic approach had, and their success and numbers are a testimony to how real the issue was, and I say this as someone who never used and despised bootstrap. Maintaining semantic CSS was hard, starting was hard, the only thing that approach had going for it was this idea that you were using CSS the way it was meant to be used, it had nothing to do with the practicality. Sure, your html becomes prettier to look at, but what good is that when your clean html is just hiding the monstrosity of your CSS file? Your clean html was supposed to be beneficial to the developer experience, but it never succeeded in doing that.

Jfc, to what end? All this retroactive cancelling of dead people is just diddling yourself for feel-good reasons. Get over it and be different instead of waving some flag that says you are different.