LOGIC💣

I don’t have a link, but I am sure I saw it on the news in the early or mid 90s. But one thing I have learned recently is that many of the “news” articles about cars are invented stories planted by other car companies.

Like one recent thing you’d have seen is stories about electric cars catching fire. It seemed that every time any electric car caught fire, it was national news, but non-electric cars catch fire frequently, as well.

So anyways, long story… less long, the story I’m remembering might have been fake, as well.

I remember when cruise control first became widespread for cars. Most people didn’t use it or barely used it. Some people, like me, did a lot of testing and figured out the best ways to use it, and ended up using it more than most. But then, there were people who just assumed it would work perfectly like they imagined, and used it as if it was a full-self-driving car, which immediately had bad results.

I think the worst thing about AI is that it lures people into fully trusting it, and they don’t even realize that their cruise control car is heading off-road towards a cliff. AI can be a useful tool if you know what you’re doing, but it is such a bad idea to have it on by default. Even a lot of fairly experienced users are tricked by AI. The average person doesn’t have a chance. It’s irresponsible to expose them to it.

This is perfect for my use case. I mostly think AI results are a waste of energy, but having them on demand can be useful.

I’m going to say something spicy here, but for me personally, I’ve found DuckDuckGo’s AI search summaries to be quite useful. Not for the actual AI summary text, but for the links they give, which are often better than the normal search results.

That being said, I could easily do without them.

I don’t wish to make too many tangential top-level comments, so I am declaring this the tangential thread, but all I can think of is that America is on a path where someday we’ll also have journalists who will literally have to choose between the truth and their own safety. We already have so many who choose lies over the truth when their safety is not questioned.

steganography markers

On top of everything else, this isn’t even the correct term, nor does its meaning match the sentiment you wish to convey.

Did you make a similar comment to OP, who only spoke negatively of a well-used and well-understood system?

What is OP’s proposed alternative? What’s a realistic plan to get there?

Here’s what OP said in the body of their post.

Most european countries use 2 round elections or proportional representation.

Although I’m not sure when they wrote that. The post was edited, so it’s possible that it wasn’t there when you first saw the post, and didn’t re-check the post before writing this comment.

What is your reason for saying that?

Just saying something negative makes it seem like it’s a bad idea, but that just encourages people not to change at all. A voting system that tries to satisfy the Condorcet criteria will be far better than any FPTP system.

It’s easier to tear down than it is to build up. What’s your proposed alternative?

I had a phone that I put the charging cable in backwards, and the port was completely broken. Bought a wireless charger and never had any problems.

(Whoever decided to standardize phone chargers on that connector should be put into prison.)

I am confused about who doesn’t use their cell phone alarm to wake up.

The real me is so introverted that I don’t find people at all. Well, I find them, I guess, but I mostly want them to leave me alone.

I guess zero human interaction is a tiny bit too low, so my dream is to live in a big city where everybody ignores me.

a potato added (not eaten)

This is a sin

I’m guessing that somebody is keeping a running count rather than calculating the votes directly. So, this would happen if your running count missed a downvote, but didn’t miss the person removing their downvote, and also didn’t have rails to guard against the value going negative. That would also jive with the person saying it’s not Voyager. Maybe you don’t see it on the other platforms because they have client-side guard rails for this data.

Normally, this is why keeping a running count is a big no-no in programming, because it easily (often instantly) gets out-of-sync with the actual data. But for a big distributed system, it is an especially challenging problem, and it might simply not be worth it to get the exact right value, and a running count might be good enough.

I agree that individual change is important, but you have to go about it a certain way. Actually the way OP is phrasing it is pretty good. Let people understand that just eating less red meat is always better.

Because if the messaging is at all confusing, you’ll get the kind of result you got during the start of Covid with the masks. It was always true that any amount of masking helped, but when you started to make it complicated, you got a lot of backlash and people completely stopped masking. And of course, with both Covid and red meat, there are people out there incentivized to make things complicated so that people give up. I think it really needs to be dead simple to work.

My big problem is not with individuals ethically trying to do the right thing, or about people trying to convince individuals to be ethical and to do the right thing.

My big problem is the amount of effort in this when it will have only small gains. In today’s society, meaningful gains come from changes in government regulations and policies.

If you want people to stop eating as much red meat, get the government to stop providing subsidies to cattle owners. I have a money-focused relative who owns cattle only because of the subsidies. At least let the price of beef go up to its actual market value. You’d think that would be an easy sell for Republicans who believe in the free market, but they’re the ones who want the subsidy the most.

Of course, then, you can add additional regulations and encourage environmental responsibility.

Suspiciously similar to a trick parents use on their children. “Do you want to eat the peas first or the carrots first?” Gives them the illusion that they made a choice about what to eat.

It could, theoretically, be like this on purpose, not only due to things like cargo space on specific planes, but also because this sort of pricing can have a psychological effect.

People don’t really know what shipping is supposed to cost, so the way they decide whether a price is good is by comparing it to other prices.

90 seems like a lot, but if it’s cheaper than the “economy” rate, people might be more inclined to purchase it and feel like they got a good deal.

I generally disagree with the entire plan, but if you’re going to do anything like this, there is a large difference between getting caught with a weapon and not. Maybe even a squirt gun. You do not need to have a weapon to get convicted of robbing a bank.

By these standards, most of my adult relatives are actually children.