Like most popular social media sites, you usually won't see very valuable discussion in the comments, at least in my experience. It's mostly for people to post news, research, and so on, and follow the big names or organizations in their field.
Most of the valuable information is diffused via posts but I do put a bit of time and effort into trying to filter out all the crap posts like memes, the faux inspirational stuff, self-aggrandizing nonsense, etc.
Sure, in the short term. I've switched to DDG and I'm not getting another Pixel when I need a new phone, and hoards of tech savvy people are feeling the same way. Dissatisfaction is causing them to lose customers and talent.
Eventually, they'll start feeling it in their bottom line. And by then it might be too late to change course.
I recognize that my intrusive thoughts are my own, but this term existing is helpful because: 1) some people incorrectly believe that thoughts imply a desired outcome, and this term helps explain and describe that this isn't always the case and 2) it's a meaningful and useful way of categorizing these types of thoughts for the purposes of psychology, psychiatry, understanding ourselves better, etc.
In cases like severe OCD, classifying intrusive thoughts as such could help someone understand and cope with disturbing thoughts and develop subsequent coping mechanisms. Not everyone's the same and some terms can be helpful.
what in particular shows that Gary Marcus is uniformed? I dislike him because he's dogmatic and petty but I haven't seen a specific thing he's been wrong about, but I'd love examples.
Intent is part of it as well. If you have too many people who want to use your service, you're not being attacked, you have an actual shortage of ability to service requests and need to adjust accordingly.
I'm going to use those things as answer machines and you can't stop me.
Jokes aside, I always validate what chatbots tell me, not even just important things. I use GPT-4 for work and 90% of the time it can show me how to use very specific functions in complex ways, but yesterday (for the first time in awhile) it made up a function that didn't exist. To its credit, I said, "Are you sure about [function]?" and it said, "I'm sorry, I got confused. That function doesn't exist. However, look into X, Y, Z for further resources" and I did and they were the correct things to look into.
The best ones can literally write pretty good code, and explain any concept on the Internet to you that you ask them to. If you don't understand a specific thing about their explanation, they can add onto their explanation, and they can respond in the style you want (explain as if I'm ten, explain as if I'm an undergrad, etc).
I use it literally every day for work in a somewhat niche field. I don't really agree that it's a "parlor trick".
I was kind of with you until saying they're "being a fucking idiot."
Encouraging someone to help out? Great.
Browbeating someone for voicing the viewpoint or experience a lot of users are facing? We can do better than that.
Fascinating that people with stutters can be helped by practicing speaking with speech jammers.
It makes me think about how ADHD medication will make people without ADHD more distractible while it'll help focus people with it.
John Wayne Gacy is really unhappy with this feature.
Here are factors that might commonly be used to provide evidence for intent to eat:
Storing the body in a way that preserves it in ways appropriate for consumption but not medical use
Owning implements used specifically for the consumption of the target creature (e.g. a carving knife for a turkey, lobster crackers/pokers, etc.)
Possession of ingredients habitually consumed with the target creature
Communications or behavior signaling an intent to eat the target creature (this one is kind of obvious)
Carnivorous character/personality tendencies (potentially provided by character witnesses before or against the defendant)
Interesting idea that intent would be such an important part of their legal system.