HelloThere

Can’t catch me, I’m behind seven boxxies!

M3 2

Is that it?

It’s complicated, but first things first you need to differentiate between the philosophy and the EA “movement”, led by Giving What We Can and others. The latter is shill bullshit and rich people power plays.

The former, set out mostly by Will MacAskill, is an application of future conscious utilitarianism within a capitalist system.

Or in a less wanky way, given you as a poor schmuck can only afford to give a few quid to charities each month, how can you “help the most”.

At the simplest level, giving £5/m to a local soup kitchen ran by volunteers who spend all of that money on food is probably more effective than giving the same amount to a major charity with hundreds of employees.

I hope that example also suggests how it itself is not actually straight forward. The local charity with volunteers may just objectively be shit at what they are trying to do, and all the money is wasted.

Point being, you, nor EA, know that unless you do the work to find out. While the principal of harm reduction is absolutely valid, it does not replace advocating for changes to the underlying system.

There is a certain poetry to them recreating the problem they solved.

Go on…

I bought the original fairbuds at launch. I’m not gonna pretend they are good sound quality for music - bass especially is terrible - but they are fine for podcasts and the like.

I’ve had to have one bud - right iirc - replaced under warranty, no hassle beyond the obvious annoyance of it breaking.

When they break again, I’ll likely replace them with whatever version of fairbuds exist then. Ultimately I care more about how fairphone source their materials, the reparebility, and setting a precident, than if a pair of buds I use for maybe 3 hours a week are a bit crap.

Not a glowing review, but yknow.

Laces out!

AI is a technical term with roots in computer science. That’s not an appeal to authority - it’s a factual statement.

Then use a definition which would hold water academically.

Switching between proper definitions and layman’s usage is basically the entire point of my original comment.

But anyway, have a lovely evening.

The rhetorical mistake you made was an appeal to authority - “in computer science” - in your reply. This only makes sense if you presumed I don’t know the details behind my statement, ie I have not studied it.

Any workable definition of AI must be more complex than a single, complete, procedure like path finding. If it isn’t, then any algorithm that is NP complete counts as AI.

For example, a script that solves sudoku is not AI.

Something being used in a thing does not make it that thing.

An engine contains pistons. A piston is not an engine.

Thank you for explaining my degree to me.

If routing algorithms are now considered to be AI the term has lost all meaning.

I’m pretty sure that’s about basting potatoes in too much butter.

Are you not fair?

France fucks, any anthem about glorious dead and cunting monarchs in to the sun is immediately S tier.

Sincerely, F tier UK.

What were you fighting about?

Also, I presume you mean arguing, rather than actual physicality, yeah?

Guess I’m watching Tank Girl tonight.

“Fuck you, Clown.”

Man who sells thing says you need thing he sells.

More at 11!