Who knows? Definitively worth trying! (…I’m not trying it.)

I’ve seen people preparing sweet cakes with Parmesan cheese. I’ve eaten it. It’s actually really tasty, so… I hope the person who took this pic tasted their tea/chocolate/whatever before throwing it away.

Relevant to note I don’t speak Nahuatl. I parsed this info from Wiktionary + Wikipedia, it’s surprisingly easy to follow.

(For the non-possessed form, as in “a penis is an organ”, use “tepolli” instead. Wiktionary also mentions “tototl” bird being used with that meaning, kind of like English “cock”.)

That’s a language-dependent ambiguity; this sort of “noun¹ noun²” construction in English is actually rather vague, and it can be used multiple ways:

• material - e.g. fish fillet (the fillet is made of fish)
• purpose - e.g. fish knife (the knife is made to handle fish)
• destination - e.g. fish food (the food goes to the fish)
• inalienable possession - e.g. fish tail (the tail belongs to the fish, and removing it means removing part of the fish)
• alienable possession - e.g. fish bowl (the bowl “belongs” to the fish, but you could give it another bowl)
• etc.

As such I believe that in at least some languages it’s probably clear if you refer to chicken egg as “an egg coming from a chicken” or “an egg a chicken is born from”. Not that they’re going to use it with this expression though.

For reference. @[email protected] used as an example “my penis”:

If I say “my penis”, it is likelier that I am talking about the one attached to me rather than the one I bought in the market.

In Nahuatl both would be distinguished: you’d call your genitals “notepollo” (inalienable possession), and the one you bought “notepol” (alienable possession). (Note: “no-” for the first person. For someone else’s dick use “mo-” when speaking with the person, i- when talking about them.)

Just language things, I guess.

If the parking was obstructing something else you can report it to enforcement for towing/ticketing or the owners of the lot.

Let’s say this was a public place. Now you need to go through all the bureaucracy to contact the relevant law enforcer. There’s a good chance they won’t fucking care, even if parking the car that way violates some law. Or alternatively there might be no law in place (even if there should be one), so there’s genuinely nothing you can do.

Now let’s say this was a privately owned place, like the parking lot of a supermarket. Do you genuinely think the owners care if their “esteemed customer” Karen’s car gets in the way of “some fucking cripples”? (Note: this sort of arsehole really, really likes to park their cars in spots for people with disabilities. Or often half of their car.)

In either case: congrats for wasting your time and solving jack shit!

And in both cases you’re relying on some higher up to do shit, when it’s actually more civil to tell the owner they’re doing shit wrong. As in, you know… leaving some message.

If it was not obstructing something else

i don’t reasonably expect someone to reach for pen and paper to leave a message in this case.

I read this reply as nothing but ego and lots of assumptions (shooting my brains out, wtf?)

If that’s the case you should at least try to develop basic reading comprehension.

I was clearly listing possible ways to handle this, and the possible outcomes. No, the odds the car owner is a violent piece of shit are not zero; waiting for them to say tête-à-tête “don’t do this, please” is not reasonable. And this is fucking obvious dammit.

I also genuinely think you don’t know what “ego” and “assumption” mean, otherwise you wouldn’t use either here. Just like you don’t know what “passive aggressivity” means.

Besides what Grumpy said (I agree with it): I think leaving a mildly rude written message was the best approach here, once you put yourself in the shoes of whoever wrote the message.

Odds are the car owner parked their car in a really obstructive way, making shit worse for everyone else. It got in your way, and it’ll most likely get in the way of other people too. So, what are you going to do?

• Nothing? You’re giving a free pass to some fucking Enzo/Valentina Karen, who’ll likely do this shit again, and again, and again, because they don’t fucking care about other people.
• Wait until the car owner arrives, and tell them something? You don’t know the owner. It’s possible they simply say “oh, I see, sorry!”, but the risk of actual violence is non-zero, they might pick up a gun and shoot your brains out.
• Leave a polite message, like “please don’t park your car this way, it inconveniences other people”? Remember, there’s a big chance the car owner is a Karen, they don’t give a fuck about other people.
• Leave a message telling them to off themselves? Now you’re going too far; not even a Karen deserves that.
• something else? Feel free to point it out.

So you leave a mocking message. That makes the person feel bad about themself, and highlight people dislike them because of their actions. That’s exactly what the person who wrote the message did.

Cops aren’t just bastards, they’re often dumb as bricks. No surprise they don’t know the difference between “content criticising Nazism” and “content praising Nazism”.

A decade ago I introduced a ~1yo (Siegfrieda) to a 7yo (Kika). It took us around two weeks to do it.

Nowadays it’s clear Kika doesn’t want to interact with Frieda at all; the later tried it a lot of times, but the former hissed and swatted at the air, as if saying “leave me alone!”. (Eventually Frieda gave up). But Kika never went out of her way to interact with Frieda, for good or bad*; so they tolerate each other really well. And as long as Frieda is quiet/busy Kika sees no problem eating, sleeping, or getting petted near her.

*with one major exception: if Frieda knows my mum is nearby but outside the house, she starts meowing really loud, as if calling my mum back. Like, REALLY loud. Once she was doing this little scandal and Kika was sleeping; Kika stood up, went to Frieda, swatted at her twice, and went back to sleep. As if saying “GODDAMMIT SHUT THE FUCK UP!”. In Kika’s defence I was getting annoyed, too.

On the other hand, when my sister adopted a new kitten (some months ago), two days later and one of the older cats was already licking him. As if the kitten was always part of the family. Nowadays they’re really close, with the new kitten playing with the old’s cat tail and ears, and both sleeping together.

So I think it depends a lot, specially on the personality of the old cat. Odds are they’ll live with each other peacefully, but don’t expect them to become besties.

No condom. I’d sub the “please don’t reproduce” with “I’m glad people like you don’t reproduce” or something like this. To add injury.

AFAIK all modpacks are made for specific versions of Minecraft, so the current modpacks are completely unaffected. And even for future modpacks, the modpack creator doesn’t need to care too much about this, since it’ll affect the mods directly. (A modpack is, like the name says, just a pack of mods stitched together and glued with some configs.)

Plus popular modpacks are often for extremely old MC versions; for example a lot of people still run modpacks made for 1.16.5 (4yo), 1.12.2 (8yo), or even 1.7.10 (12yo).

“Switching from OpenGL to Vulkan will have an impact on the mods that currently use OpenGL for rendering, and we anticipate that updating from OpenGL to Vulkan will take modders more effort than the updates you undertake for each of our releases,” explains Mojang. “To start with, we recommend our modding community look at moving away from OpenGL usage.”

Question: how much does your typical content mod decide what’s going to be rendered? Is this something typically handled by Fabric/Quilt/[Neo]Forge?

Because I can quite guess OptiFine and the likes will need a lot of elbow grease, but I’m not sure about the rest.

I can’t rule out some might have “good intentions”. But more importantly, their intentions don’t really matter — it isn’t like you or me are going to know them.

Most of the people using AI to contribute are probably like the guy who got so upset his pet AI wasn’t allowed to contribute he likely promoted it to write a hit piece on the person who rejected it.

You’re talking about the guy in charge of the slopbot who wrote shaming Shambaugh, right? Even in the hypothesis the tool misbehaved and wrote that hit piece by itself, instead of him prompting it to write the hit piece, that guy should be still blamed for libelling someone else. He was the one in charge of the tool.

I apologise beforehand for the wall of text. To be frank I’m enjoying this discussion.

You know, I don’t think the “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” thing is true anymore. […]

I still notice a fair bit of that “we’re the best Nation! Gott mit uns [sorry, wrong Nazi country] God Bless Amurrrca! Everyone else is a bloody shitskin living in a mud hut” discourse when interacting with United-Statians online. Perhaps it isn’t as strong as before, like You said, but I don’t think it’s gone.

Then again I’ve lived in a homeless shelter and surround Myself with antirealists, so what do I know about the consciousness of white suburbia?

I live in a mostly-white suburbia but it’s in Latin America, so… take what I say about USA’s youth with a grain of salt. As in, I’m throwing in what I think, but I’m fully aware it might be wrong. Still worth saying IMO, though.

“you” as the pronoun for hypothetical people […]

Got it. I’ll do as You said and use “one”. (To be frank I used “one” for some time, mostly to distinguish between the personal and indeterminate, but plenty native speakers screeched at it, so… I kind of gave up. But it’s good to know I can use it with You, and potentially with other people who capitalise pronouns.)

I confess I don’t fully understand how increased assumptiveness should lead to an increased value placed on intentions as excuses for wrongdoing.

Let’s say intentions exist as an abstraction for a bunch of mental processes, related to planning and the predictions of the outcome of one’s own actions. For example, when someone plans to do something, the person has the “intention” of doing it. Or (reusing the example from Your blog), “author intent” as the set of experiences, thoughts, emotions etc. the author is trying to provoke on the reader. In practice that’s really close to what most use the word “intention” for.

But that’s all internal to someone’s mind. Only the person themself sometimes know their own intentions; nobody else does. At most others can guess it, based on what the person’s words or actions.

So, for one to act based on someone else’s actions, or to say something about them, one needs to either

• create multiple, mutually exclusive guesses about the other’s intentions, and carefully weight the odds of each being true; or
• act as if they knew the other’s intentions.

Your typical person won’t do the former. But they’ll do the later — and the later is what we call “to assume”, it’s to take what one doesn’t know as if one did.

So there’s where assumptiveness kicks in; for most people, it’s what even enables them to talk about intentions. Without assumptiveness, the value of intentions is the same of a ghost, it’s zero.

Granted, someone’s guesses might be more or less accurate depending on how much the person guessing knows the person they’re guessing the intentions off. But when you’re dealing with vulture capitalists across the globe, one knows as much about the person as one knows future lotteries, practically nothing. They’re a stranger, but they’re still talking carefully crafted words about their own intentions, and what they talk about their intentions is the only actual piece of info you have to guide your guess them. With the wrongdoings becoming more of a “no, I didn’t have the intention! My intentions was another!”

The result is that you have a bunch of bourgeois people likely bullshitting about their intentions, and people eating it for breakfast.

Pronouns fixed! (I hope. Let me know if I fucked it up. Also, just to be sure: You’re okay with indeterminate “you” being still in minuscules, right? As in, only capitalising it for the personal pronoun?)

I don’t have data to decide between my hypothesis (biological phenomenon) versus Yours (meme). And it’s possible it’s both things at the same time. So I think I’ll roll with the idea of it being a meme.

Perhaps what the bourgeoisie is selecting for isn’t intentionalism itself, but “assumptiveness”? I’ve been noticing people are becoming increasingly eager to voice certainty based on little to nothing; “what’s inside someone else’s head” is just a consequence of that. For the bourgeoisie, this would be useful for a lot more things, for example it makes people more vulnerable against advertisement.

On USA, another factor is false consciousness. (I know You aren’t Marxist, but I think the concept is useful to Anarchists too.) The United-Statian population sees itself as part of the “ruling caste”, as opposed to “the brown people” (…like me), and in the process they subject themselves even more to the actual ruling elites there.

There’s a lot in Your article I agree with. A lot. I could nitpick some of the middle layers, but the conclusion is the same — we should simply disregard intentions, when judging the morality of the actions of someone (incl. ourselves).

Specially the 7th layer — what You said there is something that has been living in my mind for a long time, but I was never able to phrase it properly.

About the 8th layer: the bourgeoisie does love to exploit this problem when it helps them to get less blame, since it’s impossible to prove someone doesn’t have good intentions. But I don’t think they created it, I think the problem is older even than our own species, and it comes from developing a theory of mind.

Thank You for sharing it!

When the topic of AI submissions flooding open source projects pops up, my immediate reaction is to think "see, this is why you disregard intentions". Because I genuinely believe a lot of the people submitting this slop are trying to help the project, even if in reality they’re harming it, by wasting the maintainers’ time with their crap.They cause harm and deserve to be treated as a source of harm, simple as.

And while most projects could/should use more money, I don’t think that’s the solution; it allows the devs to handle more workload, sure, but the goal should be to reduce it. I think this will be eventually done through pre-sorting contributors: a cathedral for the outsiders, but a bazaar for the insiders.

Yeah, got to borrow some word from discourse analysis :-P

It fits well what I wanted to say, and it makes the comment itself another example of the phenomenon: that usage of “utterance” as jargon makes the text shorter and more precise but makes it harder to approach = optimises for #2 and #3 at the expense of #1. (I had room to do it in this case because you mentioned your Linguistics major.)

Although the word is from DA I believe this to be related to Pragmatics; my four points are basically a different “mapping” of the Gricean maxims (#1 falls into the maxim of manner, #2 of manner and relation, #3 of quality, #4 of quantity) to highlight trade-offs.

To be clear, by “communication” I’m talking about the information conveyed by a certain utterance, while you’re likely referring to the utterance itself.

Once you take that into account, your example is optimising for #2 at the expense of #1 — yes, you can get away conveying info in more succinct ways, but at the expense of requiring a shared context; that shared context is also info the receiver knows beforehand. It works fine in this case because spouses accumulate that shared context across the years (so it’s a good trade-off), but if you replace the spouse with some random person it becomes a “how the fuck am I supposed to know what you mean?” matter.

I believe that good communication has four attributes.

1. It’s approachable: it demands from the reader (or hearer, or viewer) the least amount of reasoning and previous knowledge, in order to receive the message.
2. It’s succinct: it demands from the reader the least amount of time.
3. It’s accurate: it neither states nor implies (for a reasonable = non-assumptive receiver) anything false.
4. It’s complete: it provides all relevant information concerning what’s being communicated.

However no communication is perfect and those four attributes are in odds with each other: if you try to optimise your message for one or more of them, the others are bound to suffer.

Why this matters here: it shows the problem of ablation is unsolvable. Even if generative models were perfectly competent at rephrasing text (they aren’t), simply by asking them to make the text more approachable, you’re bound to lose info or accuracy. Specially in the current internet, where you got a bunch of skibidi readers who’ll screech “WAAAAH!!! TL;DR!!!” at anything with more than two sentences.

I’d also argue “semantic ablation” is actually way, way better as a concept than “hallucination”. The later is not quite “additive error”; it’s a misleading metaphor for output that is generated by the model the same way as the rest, but it happens to be incorrect when interpreted by human beings.

Link to the archived version of the article in question.

I actually like the editor’s note. Instead of naming-and-shaming the author (Benj Edwards), it’s blaming “Ars Technica”. It also claims they looked for further issues. It sounds surprisingly sincere for corporate apology.

Blaming AT as a whole is important because it acknowledges Edwards wasn’t the only one fucking it up. Whatever a journalist submits needs to be reviewed by at least a second person, exactly for this reason: to catch up dumb mistakes. Either this system is not in place or not working properly.

I do think Edwards is to blame but I wouldn’t go so far as saying he should be fired, unless he has a backstory of doing this sort of dumb shit. (AFAIK he doesn’t.) “People should be responsible for their tool usage” is not the same as “every infraction deserves capital punishment”; sometimes scolding is enough. I think @[email protected]’s comment was spot on in this regard: he should’ve taken sick time off, but this would have cost him vacation time, and even being forced to make this choice is a systemic problem. So ultimately it falls on his employer (AT) again.