jmilloy

Do you think your comment is a good critical comment that "teaches us something"? If not, it qualifies as a shallow dismissal according to these guidelines, even if it's not a shallow dismissal according some other definition or criteria.

I don't think it's shallow because writing quality isn't important, I think it's a shallow dismissal of the writing quality because it doesn't discuss anything interesting or substantive about the writing quality.

Also, what about the other guidelines? Comments should meet all of the guidelines, not just some of them. (I do get that some of these are borderline.)

Personally, comments like this are against the guidelines. Please either downvote and move on, or comment about the parts that are interesting and substantive.

> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

> Find something interesting to respond to instead.

> Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.

> Omit internet tropes.

They only tax the assets that are held in the state. I don't know where you're getting that they will tax out of state cars.

> If anyone running the business is a California resident (by the updated definition outlined above), then the whole business is a California resident, and any assets (including Lamborghinis and Bugattis) held in the state are subject to California taxation.

> If anyone running the business is a California resident (by the updated definition outlined above), then the whole business is a California resident, and any assets (including Lamborghinis and Bugattis) held in the state are subject to California taxation.

I'm relying on the paraphrasing in article rather than the text of the law itself, but this says that it only applies to assets held in the state.

My take is that it isn't about serving non-committal matches and withholding promising matches or whatever, it has more to do with whether you feel like there are better matches on the app if you just keep lookin or waiting. I can see how and app using the stable matching algorithm could really make you feel like you're getting the best match you're going to get, which I think could have a real impact on commitment.

I'm curious if/why you think these considerations apply to this situation. This isn't a case of someone routinely destroying data and happening to do so right before a border check. Isn't this a case where the person wiping their phone right before a search, or actually tricking border patrol into wiping it, should know he had "a duty to retain it"?

I think in Gibson, most people and most corporations are boring. Capitalized and homogenized slop. The plots revolve around individuals and nooks and crannies that are cool, against the grain, hence the pink in cyberpunk. I think that exists in reality, too, but of course you have to go find it.

This video does not look cyberpunk to me. I see cyber, but where's the punk? Where's the "lowlife" or the societal collapse? This is high tech and highly controlled by enormous economic actors, but that doesn't make it cyberpunk at all.

I read your entire jumbled stream joyfully and hated the llm article that was spit out.

That sentence doesn't read as llm to me.

> I have more meaningful intellectual conversations with LLMs in a given day than in a month on social networks

Social media felt this way in the early days, too.

> they almost never feed me misinformation (and never deliberately)

This is dangerously untrue. LLMs will deliberately tell you the things you want to hear. They even "call you out" in exactly the ways that are most palatable to you. There is ample evidence that LLMs can be biased. The ability to broadly influence individual opinions, without even needing bot accounts on social media is exactly one of the reasons so many people who want power/money are flocking to control these LLMs.

> so many of my interactions are with jerks

This is one of the ways that the LLMs are "scarier" and more powerful than social networks. Real people are more likely to be obviously pushing agendas or otherwised easily dismissed.

> LLMs are the ones getting better

Getting better at what? The things you list are exactly the things that make LLMS subtly powerful and far more dangerous that social media. It's the reach and anonymity of social media without needing to control a feed algorithm, deal with content or people that doesn't fit your agenda, or produce fake content that does.

I don't know, I feel like llms are the even worse replacement for social networks and maximized ad impressions. Now you don't even need a network or users to produce the addictive content and inject narrative that is so impactful on our brains and lives

In the US, the FTC is very clear that faking or purchasing testimonials is illegal. Fabricating, purchasing, or misrepresenting customer experience is deceptive advertising and is a form of fraud. On the other hand, selecting and advertising specific real testimonials is fine. A customer described their actual experience that way, and presumably the consumers understand that advertisers will select especially positive individual testimonials for their advertisements. I can't believe I'm actually trying to explain this, but fake testimonials are illegal because the consumer has no way to know that they are made up. Real testimonials are not "lying with statistics", they're not statistics at all, and are legal because consumers can understand that it's not the median customer experience.

If picking real winners and real winnings to feature in the ad was just as good, they could do that. If not, then yes, it makes an impact on the world to mislead people with that marketing.

Somehow there's a difference between things that happened and didn't happen, and that's a good place to draw a line in the sand of what you're allowed to advertise and not.

That's like saying, if I have 9 apples, and I give you 3, how many apples do I have? 4! Get it? I have 4 apples, and I have 2 more, but that still means I have 4 apples! I still argue that, since 9 > 8.5, this is a trick question rather than a puzzle. If the puzzle said "how do we apportion the camels so that the three sons are satisfied" that would be different.