summerdown2

> Voting is choose between two terrible candidates

This framing makes it seem like the candidates are identically terrible. Which is never the case.

> I don't really know how to respond politely to downplaying genocide.

Sorry. I don't intend to downplay genocide and I don't want to come across that way.

What I'm trying to critique is (so far as I can read it from your post) your inability to see that two things can be the same in one respect - but apparently not notice that one is much bigger than the other.

If it helps, I'm not American and don't have any option to 'win' as far as US politics goes. I think you are right that Kamala Harris was facilitating genocide. But I also think you are wrong to not take into account that Donald Trump is a whole order of magnitude worse.

> Trump is attacking allies too, but they’re both criminal.

In other news, a mouse and an elephant are both mammals.

If only there was some obvious way to tell the difference between them.

> My first instinct was, I had underspecified the location of the car. The model seems to assume the car is already at the car wash from the wording.

Doesn't offering two options to the LLM, "walk," or "drive," imply that either can be chosen?

So, surely the implication of the question is that the car is where you are?

I suspect it's projection as a defense, because a number of Brits do see the US as some sort of failing police state that's snatching people off the streets.

I guess if you get your attack in first you'll be able to go "we're not the fascists, you're the fascists."

None of that is to excuse the legislation, of course, which is not very good and will have a lot of poor consequences.

> Trump says many things that nobody actually believes.

It's not a valid argument to use the general case here. Because in the case of this particular statement, it clearly isn't true that "nobody actually believes" it. It's clear that many people actually believe it.

> That's actually a good political strategy in tough times: Keep your opponents always unsure about what you're gonna do next.

I mean, sure. But in this case Denmark thought they were an ally, not an opponent. Should they also be unsure about whether one of their territories is going to be attacked?

Or are they, after all, an opponent?

To be honest, my ethical calculation comes out the other way around.

If someone is playing honest with me in good faith, and they ask for a show of good faith back, I think reciprocity, good manners and ethics favour the idea that I should do so.

If someone asks me to play fair with them, and then tries to shaft me - then any consideration I might have had for their position goes out the window. I don’t feel the slightest need to play fair with them because they are a bad faith actor.

To be clear, this is purely an opinion about ads on YouTube and whether I have to sit in one of two ethical buckets, not advocating an anything goes position.

My opinion is that there’s a third ethical position, which is a bit like the classical solution to the prisoner’s dilemma: co-operate until the other person plays you false. After that, don’t consider them a friend, and there’s no ethical problem in refusing to cooperate with them.

> I don’t like ads, but I think the only ethical options are posting to avoid them (preferably direct to artists) or watching ads

I think that ethical position is weakened by the fact many ads are links to scams and unethical things. You aren't just supporting creators by watching adverts, you're also potentially exposing yourself to bad faith actors.

I have heard good things about their customer service. But I put in my postcode to their site and the response was:

> For your location, forecast download sync speed is 27-37Mb/s and forecast upload sync speed is 4.2-6.9Mb/s.

I’m currently on ten times that and was considering going higher next time. Unfortunately that’s not currently competitive with Virgin.

> If those companies using chat bots are failing to provide value, then they won't be competitive and they will go away.

The difficulty is, this is obscured to the customer.

Let's say I have a broadband account in a country with competitors I can choose between (eg the UK, where I can have BT or Virgin). I've already chosen the best package for me. I'm ringing up after six months of good service to fix my intermittent line drop.

The chat bot is terrible and I have to wait until the problem goes away on its own.

Unfortunately for me, I can't just guarantee that switching to the other service will make a difference, because chat bots are not core service. I can compare broadband options and pick the best, and I'm already on that. Now I have to gamble that some combination of:

(broadband option) + (customer service) is higher than the one I'm on.

Unfortunately for me, I have no way of checking this. There's every chance that I'll end up on a worse broadband option and a worse customer service option.

I don't even mind the sponsored placements in my search. I'd just like a search for X to give me a page full of X, not random junk bearing no relationship to X.

Is there any way to do that on ios?

I first turned on my ipad, then sat for several minutes staring at a box on the screen that clearly wanted input but had no continue button. Only slowly did it dawn on me that there was a hidden scroll region that would enable it.