All true - but if I understand the OP's article right, the whole emergence emergence of the modern word "weird" came, because in Shakespeare's time, the original root "wyrd" and meaning "fate" of the word were basically lost to history for most people. So contemporaries made up a new meaning "odd" when the word against got more popular through the play.
Pratchett sort of hints at this by straight-up using the old word, that not even in the original Shakespeare play was used - and then of course plays with both meanings, as the witches are both deeply involved with fate, but also just strange in the modern sense.
Disclaimer though: Didn't read either Macbeth nor (this) Discworld book so far, soo ... this is just idle speculation.
On the one hand, yes; on the other hand, so much of the training data comes from scraping the web that it feels wrong for them to do what they deny others the right to do.
On the third hand, the settlement Anthropic famously had to pay was for copyright infringement because they didn't actually have the right to even access some of the training data they used, so I can see how this might be compatible with the law.
On the fourth hand, I'm saying that as someone who absolutely isn't a lawyer and sometimes gets surprised when reading about copyright cases that sure sound like they ought to have been trademark cases given my limited understanding.
My problem with memory is that it goes stale, and updates to facts are often not changing all locations of that fact. Such a system should make it easier to maintain a single source of truth, and versioning, no?
cringe in the modern vernacular means "behavior, content, or situations that cause acute embarrassment, awkwardness, or secondhand embarrassment"
As a general rule most manifestos have a subtext of how the manifesto writers are brilliant people meant to get rid of the rubbish of the past and fix the current situation in whatever subject the manifesto is focused on. After the time of the text is gone and the manifesto is a piece of the past these manifestos may elicit either the feeling of how spot on they were, secondhand embarrassment, or just hilarity, sometimes even mixes of these feelings if your relation to the movement the manifesto champions is a complicated one.
Thus when Andre Breton writes his actual poetry I might like it, but when he starts writing about what Surrealism will achieve I start thinking "give it a rest, Breton" and looking away at Yeats as someone not quite as embarrassing.
only problem I have and that's probably why I didn't associate it directly myself is that I see the example very valid for many other FOSS cases.
but in this case it feels like the part at the bottom is made of multiple random persons, not a single one, and one of those random persons decided to exclude all the other random persons.
so maybe the lower layer shall be represented as made of multiple pieces that fight each other, beside the all modern shit on top of it.
The Severn Valley railway is about to start a trial where you can buy a standard railway network ticket to Bewdley which is then valid on the SVR on special purpose trains for the Kidderminster to Bewdley section; some of those will be steam. I think if that trial becomes a permanent operation it would count.
People mean different things when they use the word "conscious", and that's part of the problem that keeps cropping up in these debates. I was using it in the most basic meaning, the one that "unconscious" is the opposite of. Someone who's asleep or knocked out is not conscious; when they wake up they become conscious again. Almost nobody denies that animals have this: they can fall asleep, and when they are awake they are conscious in the sense of being able to see, hear, taste, experience pain or pleasure, and so on. For the sake of avoiding ambiguity, I will call this "awareness" in the rest of this comment rather than "consciousness".
Other people use "consciousness" to mean self-awareness, the capacity for what is called "higher" thought, the ability to reason and philosophize and so on. It used to be nearly undisputed that animals do not have this, and even though more people today would claim that animals do have this state, that remains a minority position. (And I do not believe it, BTW). Again for the sake of avoiding ambiguity, I'm going to call this "self-awareness" for the rest of this comment.
I read this guy's article thinking that he meant "awareness" when he wrote the article — and his paragraph about Descartes's Cogito, ergo sum definitely is talking about awareness. The ability to experience qualia: the color red, the feel of heat, and so on... that's awareness. Experiencing those things does not mean that you have self-awareness: it is pretty widely accepted that animals can also experience sight (at least those with eyes), the sensation of heat or cold, and so on, but few serious thinkers would argue that that alone proves that animals have self-awareness the way humans do.
In fact, looking through the article, I still cannot find a single place where he uses the term "conscious" or "consciousness" to unambiguously mean "self-aware" or "self-awareness". Throughout, he seems to be talking about the ability to experience sensations, and perceive the world, the thing I've called "awareness".
And yet... if that's his meaning, then his thesis (that "care confers consciousness", as he phrases it in the paragraph that starts "An obvious worry follows") is staggeringly stupid. Because as I've said many times, and I don't think anyone would disagree with me, everyone believes that animals can experience sensations. Which makes his thesis obviously incorrect.
The only way I can rescue his thesis from the garbage dump for obviously-wrong ideas would be to assume that he meant "self-awareness" when he talks about consciousness. In which case his "care confers consciousness" line means something like "when we care for other people is when we start to treat them as if they were human beings, not mere meat-robots". Which would be a point that could be sensibly argued. I would still disagree with the thesis, mind, but it wouldn't be obviously staggeringly stupid.
But if he intends the word consciousness to mean "self-awareness" throughout, then his paragraph about Descartes is just plain wrong, because it is arguing about consciousness by listing off qualia, sensations (redness, heat) that you experience by perceiving the world through your senses. Those are the factors that make up awareness, not self-awareness.
One possibility remains: that he is sometimes using the word consciousness to mean awareness, and at other times using it to mean self-awareness. In which case his argument rests on calling two different things by the same name and hoping you don't notice. This is called equivocation, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation has an excellent example (in the "Fallacy of four terms" section) of why equivocation leads to bad reasoning, usually without realizing it.
No matter what, whether he means awareness throughout, self-awareness throughout, or he's equivocating, his article is bad reasoning.
It's a matter of running a for-loop. You'd get faster response times (no query→index translation), but the storage requirements for the indexes would be larger.
This is a strong indicator that Apple's privacy claims are little more than a virtue signal. Network sandboxing an app is arguably the strongest privacy protection measure possible.
Not good enough. Creating an account still leads to the "Your account was suspended for reasons, now you gotta dox yourself" dance. See previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49442907
still its ultimately not super clear i would say after many years they could have a simple landing page with a clear and consice paragraph. i dont see why this type of stuff needs to be put into manifestos and poems.
"we beleive information and coms should be free. we provide as non profit. reach out for more info on specifics. services include xyz. we do it from idealist standpoint so not everyone is rendered services. manual review."
cant beleive how many words flew by before i reached that conclusion. if it was stamped 2026 people would call it AI slop.
I really dont think the problem has gotten worse, its just more visible. The previous status quo didnt work either, you just didnt hear as much about it because there weren't commercials.
In all reality, the NASDAQ does the entire yearly turnover Klashi and Polymarket combined in a few minutes. It hasnt become as big of a problem as people make it out, but its still a problem.
But there's no going back to the status quo with 1990s methods of enforcement. Everyone knows how to use crypto and VPNs, you'd just be pushing people into shady offshore.
I'm a bit curious about Spanner. At $EMPLOYER we were going to do multi cloud with multi-region CockroachDB clusters but gave up on it because write latencies and costs were too high. Do you not get the same thing with Spanner, where technically you can have multi region but it's very unattractive to actually do?
Interesting and potentially has applicability in deriving logical rules from regulation, contracts etc. Are there already formal languages that can be used to codify, that sort of information.
All true - but if I understand the OP's article right, the whole emergence emergence of the modern word "weird" came, because in Shakespeare's time, the original root "wyrd" and meaning "fate" of the word were basically lost to history for most people. So contemporaries made up a new meaning "odd" when the word against got more popular through the play.
Pratchett sort of hints at this by straight-up using the old word, that not even in the original Shakespeare play was used - and then of course plays with both meanings, as the witches are both deeply involved with fate, but also just strange in the modern sense.
Disclaimer though: Didn't read either Macbeth nor (this) Discworld book so far, soo ... this is just idle speculation.