There's enough high quality video and audio news that it's fully possible to be an engaged and informed person even if you can't read for shit. Plus, text-to-speech is very good now. You can listen to written articles as well, even if you can't read them. You still need to evaluate sources and fact check, but that's a separate skill (albeit one most literate people also fail at).
I don't believe the literacy rate is a measure of intelligence, when the "three cueing" educational calamity is right there as an obvious explanation. That and Americans just being overworked and exhausted and sick all the time.
I actually love that it doesn't do this, because the sites that do are a headache (and sometimes entirely unusable) if using a VPN.
And since you can bookmark it with your location setting, automatic IP location could only make the first visit marginally faster for non-VPN users, anyway
toxoplasmosis doesn't actually do that to mice. It makes them less scared, but iirc, not even so much that they don't flee.
it's one of those studies that got blown up into a worldwide news story sensation even though the actual paper didn't say what headlines claimed it did. I don't know if it was ever proven replicable or not, either.
Making prey less scared of the predator makes them significantly more likely to be eaten by that predator.
The reality is even worse than “seeking out cats” because it means if it does this in humans, (which it appears to do) those among us who get infected will engage in all manner of risky, dangerous and destructive behaviors.
why are so many people so comfortable making this assumption, based on writing style or a checklist of supposed tells or notoriously unreliable detectors, and making kneejerk accusations like they can do no harm and are already settled fact? It's one thing to feel suspicious or disregard the article yourself, but being so incautious about making public accusations without solid evidence is another.
At best, you've identified LLM use. At worst, you've insulted a human writer. Either way, you've derailed the conversation away from the topic at hand.
There is no information about the author of this article, and it has the "AI smell". It's safer to operate under the assumption that it is AI generated unless and until the author reveals themself or at least anonymously confirms that it is not AI generated. This saves you from having made a fool of yourself by spreading it around, if it later becomes apparent that AI wrote it.
worst case, it's not generated and they just used ai for editing without realizing it has such a distinct style. that might be the case here: in the couple of paragraphs around the "I am but one" heading the writing style seems (to me) different (more human-ish?) compared to the style at the beginning.
unfortunately I also think they're quite bad, so I'm not sure what the moral here is for the author (who, true to their word, has elected to stay anonymous).
the question I asked in my comment isn't rhetorical, by the way: I genuinely think it's a pattern, and I want to look into it a bit deeper
oh and for the record, I don't suggest you disregard the article. it raises valid points and I agree with it. go read it!
"So buzz off" (whether a direcy quote or not) seems like a sign they accept the consequence of some people buzzing off.
If they didn't do this, they'd have to accept the consequences of those people not buzzing off, or potentially a different segment of people buzzing off.
Doing nothing isn't an apolitical option either. That's a choice too.
That's disregarding that the people in power routinely make it as difficult as possible to have a choice. If you buy the cheapest foods, maybe it's because you want to eat and pay rent, and spending any more than that would render you homeless. Becoming homeless will not save the poor in another country, even if your purchases to avoid becoming homeless would have contributed a vanishingly tiny, indirect amount to their plight.
I agree that everything is political, and it's good to make choices as ethically as you can, but sometimes it simply isn't possible to be perfect. You can't even know about all the problems without studying them like a full time job. Ain't got time for that. Gotta eat.
The "agonize over every purchase and vote with your dollar" paradigm gives the most votes to billionaires.
Should people think about ethics when buying stuff: yes.
Does failing to recycle a bottle properly, or buying a cheap chocolate bar that may have involved underpaid or even slave labor somewhere in its supply chain, mean someone is evil? Nope.
I wish people would spend less time agonizing or moralizing over what individuals do (even though an individual is easier to influence quickly) and more time going after the broken systems, stupid laws, and malignant CEOs that actually lie at the root of the problems.
Yeah. It's like everybody's forgetting that github also bans things, such as certain projects that receive DMCA takedown requests.
And github pushing its LLM garbage into Visual Studio. If banning crypto or LLM's is political, so too must be pushing them on people who don't want them and very loudly object.
It's only 'political' when someone is trying to divert from the actual, specific subject of a discussion. It's a thought-stopping tactic, not actual substantive criticism.
I'd rather companies actually care (or even just care about seeming to care) about ethics, rather than only caring what makes the line go up the fastest, yes.
A company that treats ethics as optional, or that thinks "it's a business" excuses every imaginable sin, is one that will happily screw you and me over too.
Also, in the long term, making climate change worse is a catastrophically bad decision for absolutely everybody. Companies just have to look past the ends of their own noses to see the immediate, quick payout of not giving a fuck about it is like accepting payment to dig their own graves.
Also, this is probably, in part, about all the cryto scams everywhere. Companies don't like legal trouble.
Anyway, anybody who's sane backs up their source code. If a company burns you, and it's not a monopoly, you leave it. It's not a problem.
That money had to have come from somewhere, whether it was taxpayers or individuals. What if I donated? Is it cool to just roll over and allow political groups to hijack a previously neutral service?
Also there are other projects hosted there, and network effects involved.
Probably if you become a member you'll have more ability to discuss with the other members and the board and the operators, yes.
Clearly they are setting limits on a case-by-case basis where needed. If something like GNOME was on Codeberg, they'd happily raise the storage quota for them. So they can also exempt you from the AI code rule if you have a really good reason, which you don't.
They have noted somewhere (it's linked in this thread) that most vibe-coders act like they're big and valuable software projects (like GNOME), and use commensurate resources, even though they aren't. This is what they want to block. If you were actually GNOME and you were vibe-coding, they'd probably let you.
This step perfectly aligns with the political direction Codeberg had from the very start.
Who are you to now come in and demand they change to fit your political stance?
I don't understand the complaint. This is the most participatory governance model of any of your options for this service category. If that's not enough for you, you really should just host your own.
Then it's moved in a direction you don't like and you can withdraw? What happens when someone you don't like, that you donated money to, changes stance?
Codeberg? Did they? I know large corporations do it because they fear commercial retaliation, but Codeberg is a registered German charity by German citizens living in Germany and has absolutely no reason to give a flying fuck what the US president thinks. Which is incredibly based.
Can't every company do that at any time though? How is being on the other side of an ethical line different or more risky from being on the other side of a spreadsheet-driven line. One day you're in a green cell and it's all good, the next you're in a red cell and on the other side of what they care about (just green cells).
The decision to stop hosting such projects on codeberg will change nothing, it will just make it clear that its not a serious competitor.
Its like how the EU kneecaps everything related to energy because of the climate while literally the best case scenarios for the EU lawa is to be 0.1 colder, because the EU isn't the bigger emitter.
It just doesn't matter.
The biggest problems with energy policy in the EU haven't been about climate. If they were they wouldn't have been shutting down nuclear to burn Russian gas, nor would they have been suffering the high prices when that Russian gas got less available.
Moreover, the EU is a large market. If they e.g. switch to electric cars, it's not just them switching to electric cars, it's all the carmakers who want to continue selling into that market, who in turn design electric rather than ICE cars that they sell everywhere and increase the economies of scale for battery production which makes them more economical everywhere.
I didn't say it violated the first ammendment. I said it violated the principle of free speech. It's the same principle that justifies your ability to post in this discussion here, right now, despite the fact that you don't believe in it yourself.
Maybe we should campaign to ban all left-wing aligned projects from all major git hosting services. No big deal right? After all they can just go somewhere else. No, clearly this is not reasonable. But I say this to demonstrate that your ability operate in society at large depends on the same principle of free speech that you do not extend to others.
Hey. It isn’t the same principle. We have guidelines here, too. For instance: “ Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.” “Avoid generic tangents.” Etc.
> It's the same principle that justifies your ability to post in this discussion here, right now, despite the fact that you don't believe in it yourself.
HN has rules. I can be banned if I violate them.
It seems this very site does not uphold the free speech principle all that much.
> Maybe we should campaign to ban all left-wing aligned projects from all major git hosting services.
Sure, if it suits them. Fine by me. I believe in freedom of association.
There are some limitations for certain public services to avoid discrimination and segregation, but apart for that, I don't care.
In fact, I host my own Gitea instance for my private projects.
> But I say this to demonstrate that your ability operate in society at large depends on the same principle of free speech that you do not extend to others.
It absolutely does not. Speech was not completely free in any country I lived in, and society worked out fine.
There is a degree of freedom within the democratic framework of those countries, but there are absolutely rules limiting speech. And it is fine, societies are all about compromises.
ublock origin (not to be confused with the lite version) can also do this, and is more flexible. But it's easy to miss this functionality because you have to know about and read some documentation to learn how to turn ublock's "medium" mode on and how the controls work.
I don't believe the literacy rate is a measure of intelligence, when the "three cueing" educational calamity is right there as an obvious explanation. That and Americans just being overworked and exhausted and sick all the time.