That’s fair, but I was thinking in the context of meme communities like this one in which nearly all of the posts are images.

There is no meme police and nobody uses the term image macro.

I would argue that memes aren’t necessarily meant to be funny. I think the most important component of a meme is its composition, which is usually a square image with optional text. But yeah, I completely agree with your broader points.

Maybe you should just try being lucky. I found a critical security vulnerability while working on my scraping project. I told them, they paid me and gave me written permission to scrape.

It is good enough. I wouldn’t have cared if they did make paid users opt out. I think it’s a courtesy to their paid users, not an attack on their free users, that they allow paid users to opt in instead of opting out.

Also, there’s no way they developed a whole separate system for this. It’s likely a single line boolean check.

That’s fair, but that’s just a service quality complaint. It doesn’t sound to me like you are claiming they are doing “a bad thing”, as a moral value judgement.

I disagree about what the bare minimum is. It’s not uninformed. They tell you about it, and tell you you can opt out. I don’t really see how that would be them doing it without permission.

The right thing is to make it opt-in for everyone

How is that the right thing? I’m directly challenging this claim.

All I said was that free users cost them money, so it’s reasonable for them to try to recover those costs. I never claimed that free users are a drain on them, so I won’t even respond to the rest of your comment.

This may be controversial, but trying to collect the data of your free users to offset the costs of the infrastructure/resources needed to support the free users is not a bad thing - especially when you give those users an option to opt-out.

You make it sound like their goal is to do bad things. That’s not true. Corporations are not good or evil, they are amoral. They don’t care if what they are doing is good or bad - it just matters if they make money.

they’re free to just do the right thing completely

What exactly would that entail?

It’s not stupid. Most cars will signal whether or not they are locked properly on the second press.

No has said it because it’s not true.

There’s a general negative attitude towards chromium browsers due to some anticompetitive practices pulled by Google in addition to privacy concerns and probably some more issues I’m not aware of. So that includes chrome, but also edge and most other chromium based browsers.

Ah. That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation!

Not sure I understand. Are you agreeing that the moon landing happened but you also claim the footage is faked? Do you have any reasons to support that? You mention something about radio technology from the 1920s, but the moon landing occurred nearly 50 years later, so I hardly see how that is relevant.

Yeah, I’m gonna need more than your incredulity to convince me. Like, fun that you think it is inconceivable, but your inability to imagine has no bearing on reality. Especially when there is plenty of evidence to suggest they actually filmed and broadcasted it live. For example, the fact that a live television broadcast was a primary goal of the mission, or the fact that RCA made custom TV cameras for the Apollo program , or that the broadcast lasted for hours, or any of the analyses out there that shows the video is likely real. Also, no one suggested that the Apollo astronauts had a camera crew with them - what a bizarre thing to mention.

Why stop there? They’re just as real as any number.

Something has already happened and they didn’t touch my rates. I’ve been saving hundreds of dollars a year. I’ve saved well into the thousands of dollars at this point. I’m not saying the insurance companies are my friends and while I am better off using the tracker than not using it, that wasn’t even my point. My point was that the trackers all function differently and some are better than others.

It’s crazy how most of those programs work. The way my insurance handles it is way better. For example, no matter how bad you are at driving, they never raise the premiums above the normal rate, so it almost always makes sense to get the tracker from a finance perspective. (The only exception is that they will raise your rates if you drive farther in 6 months than you estimated on your initial application. The flip side is that they lower your rates if you don’t drive very much. I only drive about 1000 miles every 6 months, so my premium is really low.) They also have a Bluetooth device that stays in your car that your phone must be connected to in order for it to record trip data, and if you happen to be riding as the passenger in the car, the app has an option that allows you to clarify for each trip that you weren’t the driver. I was surprised to learn they aren’t all like that.

Language parsing is a routine process that doesn’t require AI and it’s something we have been doing for decades. That phrase in no way plays into the hype of AI. Also, the weights may be random initially (though not uniformly random), but the way they are connected and relate to each other is not random. And after training, the weights are no longer random at all, so I don’t see the point in bringing that up. Finally, machine learning models are not brute-force calculators. If they were, they would take billions of years to respond to even the simplest prompt because they would have to evaluate every possible response (even the nonsensical ones) before returning the best answer. They’re better described as a greedy algorithm than a brute force algorithm.

I’m not going to get into an argument about whether these AIs understand anything, largely because I don’t have a strong opinion on the matter, but also because that would require a definition of understanding which is an unsolved problem in philosophy. You can wax poetic about how humans are the only ones with true understanding and that LLMs are encoded in binary (which is somehow related to the point you’re making in some unspecified way); however, your comment reveals how little you know about LLMs, machine learning, computer science, and the relevant philosophy in general. Your understanding of these AIs is just as shallow as those who claim that LLMs are intelligent agents of free will complete with conscious experience - you just happen to land closer to the mark.

Imaginary numbers are no more imaginary than real numbers. The name trips a lot of people up. If you want to call imaginary numbers “dark unicorns” then you really should say the same thing of the numbers 1, 2, and all other numbers as well.