Why use more syllables when few syllables do trick? It’s not like T-Rex is ever ambiguous.

With no additional context, if you said that “the balls in this glass are generally blue”, I would interpret that meaning every ball falls within the range of hues that can still be called blue by most people but may be questioned by a few. So 100% of the balls have to be “I can see why someone would call that blue”.

Financing is available for your $1 candy bars now.

Cloud housing when?

Some are less unethical than others.

So when you say “I believe in objective morality”, you mean that you believe morality should be objective, not that it is objective. I’m inclined to agree because that would certainly simplify life a lot, but unfortunately, you can’t just make morality objective any more than you can make gravity not exist. It is what it is, and we have to figure out a way to work with what we have.

So morality is relative in a society that doesn’t have a proper moral framework?

I think you missed the “indirect” part. This isn’t someone going around stabbing people. It’s someone who goes around obstructing people from getting medication or medical treatment that they need, or from acquiring food, or someone who indiscriminately gets people fired from their jobs and put on the streets where they’ll die a slow death.

Regarding solitary confinement: As an individual, you don’t have the power to detain someone in that manner. But you do have the power to kill.

Any honest conversation about a situation will end up with two people, happily or not, having to admit there’s one path more moral than others

You don’t say that they agree on which path is more moral than the other, but I’m assuming that’s what you mean. But also, no, that doesn’t happen. In an honest conversation where you disagree on morals, you just learn that you both have different values.

There are some things that more people are likely to agree on, like your example about stealing a towel from a hotel. But there are also many that people vehemently disagree on. For example, is it morally right to kill someone who has (and will continue to) indirectly kill many of other people?

I see nothing in my library that can be abbreviated to MK1.

I dream of a world where people can follow their passion without having to worry about where their next meal will come from.

I think mine already figured out by 2. This kid keeps making the animal noises of any animal we happen to be eating. They’re also doing “woof woof” at hot dogs.

If the upscaler was trained on data that contains that exact patch in other contexts, it’ll theoretically be capable of upscaling it properly.

I don’t know if they managed cheaters well, but it’s one of those games where the presence of cheaters really doesn’t affect how enjoyable the game is unless you’re at the very top. I don’t understand why they had to impose the anti-cheats on everyone equally.

All the AI companies would beg to differ

I’ve been told the French is rather mediocre compared to the English.

Pebble seems to be headed in a good direction ever since it got bought back by the original founder.

I work in AI research, so naturally, AI is part of our day to day work. But when it comes to things like LLMs tools and other generative models, we rarely hear anyone talk about those. Sometimes, people will share their workflow, and that may involve LLMs to supplement traditional search engines for literature reviews for example. That’s about the extent of it. No one really cares to talk about them much. No one pushed those tools on us. We just do our work with whatever tools we think are best.

Tolerance is tangential to humanization. You can be tolerant of a human. You can also be intolerant of a human.

But you cannot defy the laws of thermodynamics, so if you make anything colder, you need to absorb the energy to do so and vice versa. First time using this power and you accidentally made something too cold? Sounds like you just burned to death.