See, this is what I mean. I never said that. I never said anything close to that. At this stage you’re just making up opinions you want me to have so that you have something to attack.

What you’re saying makes no sense… you drawing an equivalence from the existence of an objective reality to some people controlling how that reality is perceived. If anything, you gotten it all flipped around: If reality is subjective (which itself is absurd) then any interpretation of it is equally valid. In that case, anyone is free to believe in their own reality, regardless of the objective facts that prove them wrong. This is basically what’s going on with the MAGA movement: A bunch of people deciding that “reality is what I want it to be”, and acting based on “alternative facts” in complete disregard for the objective, observable, facts around them.

It’s literally a face swap based on someone pulling a funny face. It’s one of the oldest internet jokes there is, and has nothing to do with body shaming, misogyny, or anything of the sort.

It’s obvious that you’ve already decided that you “know” what the person you’re arguing with means and think, and then you’re attacking that instead of recognising that you’ve misunderstood them.

That doesn’t even remotely answer my question though? My impression was that you have some kind of belief that an objective reality doesn’t exist in the first place, and that just doesn’t make any kind of sense to me.

Sure. They just occupied, blockaded and displaced a shitload of the people that now live in Lebanon, because their homes were stolen and their families were killed by Israelis.

You can’t both believe something and doubt it.

I have beliefs about what I think is the most probable truth. That means I can both believe something is true, and acknowledge the probability that I’m wrong. Whenever my beliefs change, there’s necessarily a period where I gradually come to see the probability that I’m wrong as larger than the probability that I’m right, at which point my beliefs about what is right change. However, the acknowledgement that I may still be wrong remains.

I honestly don’t even think I get your position here. Do you somehow not believe that you live in some kind of objective reality together with the rest of us? Do you think this is all just going on in your head? Like… is this some kind of far-out simulation theory thing? Even if we do live in a simulation, that simulation itself must exist in some kind of “real world”.

Please explain

Yeah. When someone comes to your house, shoots your parents, kicks you out, and “settles” in your neighbourhood you should just leave them alone. After all, they would never have done that if you hadn’t… shot rockets at them after they did it??

It’s not about the pictures. I honestly think this is just an excuse to get rid of journalists, and a method for hammering home the point that “journalists bad. news fake.” I’m not even sure he’s actually seen the pictures I question.

With that said, I wouldn’t put it past him to actually be so vain that it is really about the pictures. However I think it’s more likely that he would have done something like this anyway, and just picked an excuse.

I’ve had a couple of those situations. In all cases it was a friend that I ended up getting horny with, and then we figured “why not?”. In all cases, the answer turned out to be that shit quickly gets complicated when people develop new feelings because they’re sleeping together.

Frankly, I have no issue with polyamorous people, but I honestly can’t understand how they get it to work. Every time I’ve slept with someone repeatedly over an extended period of time, it ended up fundamentally changing our relationship to the point where being with anyone else became an implicit no-go. I have no explanation for exactly why but those feelings just developed, no matter how much we promised each other they wouldn’t, and pretended they didn’t.

Good luck man… I’ve been through a couple of these variants but with my (current) SO of quite some time I feel like I’ve found the center. That doesn’t mean it’s never complicated, but it means we’ve learned to deal with and work through a lot of complicated stuff. I honestly believe the most important ingredient in getting to that center is the will to see the best in each other and work through whatever life throws your way.

However, naked with just socks is still more naked than just naked.

Empirical evidence that wearing shoes makes you more naked: The only thing hotter than a naked woman is a naked woman with heels.

Viking/Danish

Norse. And it’s more similar to modern Icelandic than anything else, perhaps most closely followed by (distant second place) Norwegian.

Well said, I see that I may have read your initial comment a bit too quickly and misinterpreted it a bit :)

On one level I agree with what you’re saying. On a different one I really dislike the “just do it” attitude, when we’re dealing with software that has been engineered to be extremely addictive. Of course, you could tell a heroine addict or meth-head that they need to “just decide to quit”, but it’s well established that that doesn’t usually help much. Of course, it’s true that, bottom line, they “just” need to quit. However it’s reductionist to the point of no longer being helpful to suggest that as a solution in itself.

With e.g. social media (and other addictions) we should be doing more than just putting it on the individual to cut out their addiction. After all, they’re just an individual that’s fighting a huge for-profit industry that’s set up around keeping them addicted. Asking them to fight that battle alone is setting them up to fail.

You can fine-grain nr. 2 even more: You can give access to e.g. modify files only in a certain sub-tree, or run only specific commands with only specific options.

A restrictive yet quite safe approach is to only permit e.g. git add, git commit, and only allow changes to files under the VC. That effectively prevents any irreversible damage, without requiring you to manually approve all the time.

You’re absolutely right. I mostly run a pretty simple local model though, so it’s not like it’s very expensive either.

Saying that it can serve the same purpose does not mean that I mean the two are equivalent in every aspect.

Just based on how you’ve responded so far it seems like you’re wilfully misinterpreting how I actually use an LLM for this purpose, especially with responses referring to LLMs causing people to commit suicide and offloading decision making or the thought process itself to an LLM.