Oh that’s not a fuckup in my book!

You’re already doing what a good moderator separates you one from an average one: engage, explain and adapt!

I appreciate that! And moderating topics like these is frankly nearly impossible as it’s a clash of science and “moral”.

My gist is simple: NSFW is literally: “would you mind a coworker seeing you looking at this?”. After all marking something as NSFW is a form of self censorship: “I recommend you not looking at this at work!”.

From this I deduce two things: a) text should have a higher barrier for NSFW than images. Other people need to actively read what you’re looking at and it’s way harder to claim that text is not workplace appropriate compared to a picture of primary sedual organs. b) What’s actually depicted and said? The Wikipedia page about human reproduction falls at least at my workplace not under NSFW although a penis is clearly depicted.

Now to the OP: it’s an article discussion the struggle of sex workers (well promotion of a book about it but same same). The issue here is that marking articles like these as NSFW perpetuates the core issue of the content discussed: that this is a woman problem that should be talked about in private.

I guess that’s where the majority of downvotes come from as well: “this should not be viewed in the workplace” is a catastrophic signal in this context for the message.

Now to your point of respectdirectly: OP doesn’t disrespect the people who filter out NSFW content because this article should be visible and even discussed in professional contexts if we as human society want to progress. It’s source is a newspaper, it’s content socially relevant and aimed at (provocatively!) educating and it’s topic is sadly very relevant.

All of this is my personal opinion of course but I wanted to leave you with more than just a two word comment!

This is the exact headline of an established newspaper. Wherever you’re allowed to have your phone or for reading at work then this should be just as fine.

Please be consience on what NSFW should be and don’t call for censorship in its name.

Ironically fitting to the article itself.

I’d expand it to director plus or similar, i.e. for people who lead other people with personell responsibilities it starts making sense to have three rounds imo.

That said I share your gist!

Yeah I had a brainfart, meant namespace…

And thanks a lot for this writeup I think with your help I figured out where I went wrong in my train of thought and I’ll give it another try next week when I have a bit downtime.

The time you took to write this is highly appreciated! ♥

Do you have a link at hand on how start a process within a specific veth by chance? Own name spaces are easy enough and a lot of tutorials but I don’t want my programs to ever be not in the vpn space, not at startup not as fail over etc.

That’s the reason why I stuck with the container setup, only for gluetun plus vpned services.

This comment is so wild to my non US eyes. I had to convert the sqft you gave because I missremembered. Friends of mine are family with two kids and live in a bit more than half that space (80m2) - and are not the exception from what I know.

To see 130m2 “too small for the family” is really weird and I’d love to see/understand where the differences come from. I guess that even how the space is calculated might have an impact. Really fascinating!

Thanks for sharing!

I don’t know why you think that this is projection on the OPs part.

Personally I don’t find that “suspense” part that you describe. I fully agree that she has a highly successful career and fan base - doesn’t mean her humor is for everyone.

Personally I’m curious to see the series and I find her way less annoying than some of the past people which were highly popular (Cooper and Stirling for me personally).

I’m more curious than worried - and could fully understand that someone expressed “oh there’s this comedian I don’t enjoy, too bad. Oh is that something I shouldn’t say about this person specifically?”.

Too bad that some of those are quite certainly made up. At least for the Voltaire one I even have a very in depth source:

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/08/13/no-enemies/?amp=1

Doesn’t take away the fun for me though - thank you for the collection!

Oh I completely agree, sorry if that wasn’t clear enough! Consciousness is so arbitrary that I find it not useful as a concept: one can define it whatever purpose it’s supposed to serve. That’s what I tried to describe with the skynet thingy: it doesn’t matter for the end result if I call it conciense or not. The question is how I personally alter my behavior (i.e. I say “please” and “thanks” even though I am aware that in theory this will not “improve” performance of an LLM - I do that because if I interact with anyone or - thing in a natural language I want to keep my natural manners).

That is not how these LLM work though - it generates responses literally token for token (think “word for word”) based on the context before.

I can still write prompts where the answer sounds emotional because that’s what the reference data sounded like. Doesn’t mean there is anything like consciousness in there… That’s why it’s so hard: we’ve defined consciousness (with self awareness) in a way that is hard to test. Most books have these parts where the reader is touched e emotionally by a character after all.

It’s still purely a chat bot - but a damn good one. The conclusion: we can’t evaluate language models purely based on what they write.

So how do we determine consciousness then? That’s the impossible task: don’t use only words for an object that is only words.

Personally I don’t think the difference matters all that much to be honest. To dive into fiction: in terminator, skynet could be described as conscious as well as obeying an order like: “prevent all future wars”.

We as a species never used consciousness (ravens, dolphins?) to alter our behavior.

But that’s not what OP asked / wanted to dicuss? The person you’re attacking simply answered the original question:

“would it be a danger to the whole of humanity or our evolutionary progress?”

While I think the data alignes with your observation and your interpretation of the risks are on point it deviates from the point the person you answered to.

Oh I disagree in the conservatism because my argument is: we can’t normalize written language because the phonetics in one language is wastly different in different regions and either we go to the pre Grimm “everyone writes as they speak” or there’s normalization.

That’s what confuses me: your definition of what the orthographic systems are supposed to solve differs from what l got taught: That people started writing preserve information - the phonetic alphabets were then adopted because (oversimplification!) it was easier.

My professor of historic German (Mittelhochdeutsch, not sure of the proper translation) always joked about the “sprechen wie gedruckt” people in Germany who claimed to talk “proper” German because of all the changes in language which get reflected over time into the main language (do you go “zu Aldi” or “nach Aldi” for example are regional directional expressions.

What is preserved is the clear meaning of things and standardization.

To get back to the OP: The standards are needed to prevent phonetic writing to alter the meaning of a sentence away from what the senders intend or puts a burden onto the reader to decipher. And that’s the risk when mixing relation and time (than/then).

From my perspective the discussion comes down to “who puts energy into the communication, the sender or the reader”. And for a lot of these examples it is less energy for the author than it is for the reader to then establish a common understanding.

That said: I find it fascinating to read such a different take on that topic and learn new things, thank you!

Since when is there “the” English way of pronouncing stuff? Same for French? I learned to pronounce then and than differently and stumble while reading if it is misspelled.

Friend, I just read your whole post. Keep in mind that your mental health should be more important to you than (♥) anything else!

May I suggest just giving yourself enough leeway to keep the mental capacity to shrug of random internet people? We - your NPCs - should never be as important in regards to your own health!

What you’re describing sounds to me way different though - you only share the same symptoms! I get the feeling that you strife for perfection in how others perceive you. OP on the other hand is a tuna sandwich dick.

Please feel appreciated this day for the thoughts you make and the effort you put in no matter what the internet points tell you.

Arr my friend, there are solutions to your problem! If course it depends on what you (don’t) see as theft.

My opinion: it isn’t. If you want only this one thing then I suggest the manual approach. But if you once tasted the high seas you’ll soon become your own tech specialist, running a whole… Stack of arr.

And to be less subtle: torrent that shit. Use a vpn. If you want to ramp it up check out the arr stack aka servarr aka a way to automate the whole download and consume thing. There’s a learning curve involved but learning is fun! :)

Thanks for the clarification! A wish you an awesome start into the week :)

Preventing teenage pregnancy by obfuscating sex has the same idea.

I agree with the boundaries part. The second part though: they will figure it out either way… At least my brother did when he was young and our parentsgot a nice lawyer in voice for that (fucked up laws, I know, I know).

Personally I want them to learn about ransomware! If that cost me a PC… My fault.

Hey I wanna try what the bot usually does.

German chancellor a wasted opportunity.

I saved you several words, most of those redundant.

♥! :)