You wouldn’t give credit to Python or rust for the execution of your code that led to published results or a discovery…
The Hubble telescope was a tool that led to downstream innovation…
are these LLM/xyz models not the same?
Solo iOS app that I have been working on since January: https://bhol.app - crossed 500 MRR in June. Seeing the traction and feedback from users is the best form of motivation to keep going.
Now working on scaling it via UGC/social media, landing deals with local language schools, and upping the design with more Rive assets.
Could you elaborate on this.
I’ve recently seen a couple of interviews with Alex Carp on YouTube. He seems like someone who addresses ideas with a strict logical sense of thinking. I haven’t given a look at his book he just released but from the preface it seems he promotes this kind of logic first reasoning.
I actually have access to audio books on my version of the app. I have a family plan and on the main account page it says that I get access to 15 hrs of audiobooks before I need to “top-up”. None of the other seats in the family plan have this though just me as the account manager.
Im quite young(under 21) but hiking as been a huge outlet for my stress. During the first lockdown, weekly hiking was my time of self care.
Its also super good for your cardio vascular system. My Vo2 Max raised around 10-15 points from hiking alone along with my overall speed.
Hiking is also one of those thing where it indirectly teaches you life skills; sometimes zigzags are the fastest route or slow and steady is faster then going fast and taking breaks.
Just binge watched this today after I saw your comment and it is fantastic. Good banter along with a guided sense of direction towards their goal of completing their challenges and reaching their end city.
Personally I feel this is law is a great step forward to stop hate speech and other forms of severe harassment but the thought that if you happen to “rage” on someone mid game and receive jail time for that scares me.
Society is becoming more and more closed off in a way where rather then freedom of expression you have to limit ur speech to not offend another.
You think it's a great step forward, but you're scared of it and feel that society is becoming more closed off because of a lack of freedom of expression. How does this make any sense?
Certain pockets of the gaming community are crime-adjacent with respect to online harassment (not the type this law describes; actual, clearly illegal and clearly not constitutionally protected harassment).
You see similar things in other crime-adjacent communities. E.g., I've known many taggers who support stiffer penalties for people who tag in national parks, deface uncontroversial monuments, etc but are afraid that those stiffer penalties might result in a crackdown on their own plainly criminal art installations.
Similar with petty theft. Lots of people will say stuff like "I love boosters they are taking care of the common man" while simultaneously going into fits of rage when their own property is stolen.
"I spend enough time around people who commit this crime that I can see how much damage this type of behavior can cause, but I also think my particular flavor of it is harmless."
I honestly do not understand how people can be so myopic that they cannot, at all, anticipate the second-order effects that will come from legislation they "like" because it bans things they "don't like."
I'm not sure how this is responsive to the normalization of deviance.
Criminal harassment isn't a "don't like" thing. It's just a misdemeanor crime. Harassment people isn't "just free speech" even if it is speech. Graffiti isn't "just art" even if it's art. There has never been a time in the USA where you could systematically harass someone without committing a crime.
>Personally I feel this is law is a great step forward to stop hate speech and other forms of severe harassment
... maybe if we somehow knew and trusted the results of whatever computer systems were being used to condemn the guilty -- or had some classical and well known and agreed upon definition for hate-speech that was internet-spanning... but we have neither.
the reality of it is that data moves in a lot of imprecise ways, and you'd better really hope that the hammer never falls accidentally on the innocent , otherwise such policy causes more harm than good.
My opinion : this will become unintentionally weaponized, like DMCA reports -- and worse yet it'll be intentionally weaponized, too. It's too easy to make data look like it's coming from elsewhere -- what happens when your node is the one that's somehow coerced into breaking the law by some malware, bad actor, or kid with abusive remote administration privs?
we as a society should probably get a grasp on data and data flow before we throw folks into a prison for things the data flows indicate; 'computers as witnesses' is too falsifiable and imprecise as a concept at the current stages of things to be used in good faith.
> Personally I feel this is law is a great step forward to stop hate speech and other forms of severe harassment
I can't speak to Japan, but harassment is already a crime in all US states. Using a telecommunications device to harass often carries even stiffer penalties than just harassment.
All US states also have laws specifically about cyberbullying [1]. Although there have been successful challenges (e.g., in Colorado) most of these laws are almost certainly constitutional.
It's hard to form an opinion on this particular law without more details (about both the law and Japan's legal system), but the way it's described in the article is worrying. Publicly insulting someone can be a component of harassment, but on its own is clearly not harassment. There is a distinct difference between insulting someone in the course of a conversation and a sustained campaign against that person.
> but the thought that if you happen to “rage” on someone mid game and receive jail time for that scares me.
"Trolling" in gaming is like "tagging" in certain tagging-adjacent communities. In both cases the crimes (vandalism, criminal harassment) have become so normalized that membes of the community reframe plainly criminal behavior as positives -- "free speech" and "art" respectively.
Criminal behavior has become completely normalized among certain pockets of heavy internet users, most of which are heavily adjacent to gaming.
I'm not talking about being rude or divisive on a forum. I'm talking about things like death threats, doxxing, brigading non-public-figures, messaging people on all social media channels from dozens of obvious sock puppet accounts and continuing for months after being asked to stop (happened to a local teacher after appearing on a 3 minute news segment), etc.
A lot of what passes for "just trolling" among heavily online individuals -- gaming-adjacent communities in particular -- is in fact textbook criminal behavior. A lot of the behavior during Gamergate, for example, should've resulted in restraining orders, fines, and jail time.
The problem with hate speech is it's subjective and wishy-and-washy, so it tends to be hijacked by social campaigners with an agenda who use it as a weapon against ideological enemies.
Prime example is transgender rights activists painting those who question the efficacy of transgender treatments as perpetuating hate speech, even if the concerns are grounded.
For that reason, hate speech laws are a terrible idea. Nobody has the right to not be offended, that's not what modern civilization was ever built on.
A definition need not meet the legal bar for us to consider what kind of things a formally specified law might include; there are doubtless many possible definitions of 'hate speech', and debating those and reaching an agreement among various interested parties is part of the legal process that involves the whole of society. Someone is going to disagree with any definition given, but that doesn't mean that the sovreign lawmakers can't come to some agreement when put to debate.
In other words, unless the person you're replying to is a lawmaker with supreme authority, there is no need for them to speak for what you might have 'hate speech' defined as in law. Most people aren't lawmakers, but they are involved in the process of creating laws.
That works great on the playground when some kid is insulting you to your face. But at some point people figure out that while words themselves cannot directly harm a person, they can be used to influence future events in a way that will harm that person.
Then a different bit of writing, predating the "sticks and stones" saying by a couple thousand years, is more accurate. That would be Ecclesiasticus 28:17-18, which says:
> The stroke of the whip maketh marks in the flesh: but the stroke of the tongue breaketh the bones. Many have fallen by the edge of the sword: but not so many as have fallen by the tongue.
Or even older, "The word is mightier than the sword" from 2500 year old Assyrian writings.
I like Shakespeare's version: "many wearing rapiers are afraid of goose-quills".
