a surprising amount of people seem to genuinely believe law enforcement (generally, not just police) is at its core based on discretionary actions guided by their moral values and not a morally neutral action upholding agreed upon contracts
that is to say, the law only applies to you if you do "bad" things. and ill be honest, there is a level of truth to this to me. from a practical standpoint, it is infeasible to formally understand every nuance of every law ever created just to be a citizen. The underlying core social contract does appear to be one of "if you do 'good' things, generally the law will agree with you and if it doesnt then we wont hold it against you the first time"
*the important caveat here is that this leaves a rather disgustingly large and exploitable gap in what is considered good vs bad behavior, with some people having biases that can spin any observable facts into good or bad based on their political agenda. Additionally, personal biases like racism for example, influence this judgement to value judge your actions in superficial ways
Less about value judgements. More about outsourcing to people/brands we trust.
When it comes to software licenses, we aren’t lawyers, so the informed people will use a primer created by a trusted 3rd party. Maybe GitHub’s “which license is right for me?” Page.
Who to vote for in local elections is usually decided via one of the following: (1) I know/met the person, (2) I trust the party they affiliate with, (3) I trust the newspaper/news source which recommended them.
Academic papers are usually thick, long, and inaccuracies are difficult for anyone not in that field of expertise (or something relevant like statistics) to identify. Most people require an overview of the article by an expert. Hopefully (but unlikely) they can choose one which is impartial / minimally biased and who can give an opinion on how definitive or significant the findings are.
Which is why its backwards and makes no sense that we allow / cater to "well nothing said I couldnt do that" as a reasonable defense. The value judgement system should go both ways. then a lot less would need to be written down to begin with, because it wouldnt be an arbitrary set of rules on every front but the codification of a specific value judgement system with clarifications on how to align yourself to it.
We really shouldnt be allowing things like, "this is a location dedicated to peace and non-violence" and then section 32 subsection C part 2 (a) says "we can kick the shit out of you if you photograph the premises". Just a random made up example for communication purposes, but it applies to all sorts of things. Personally, I think it should apply to social media. there was a implied sense of privacy to it, that people could not see my information if i did not approve it - and then the fine print says except for the company running the page who can sell the information to whoever they want. Like WTF was that about? I wont say its an ignored thing, there plenty of outrage over it - but i think its incredibly fundamental to whats going wrong and feeding this information overload in a dangerous / stressful way.
Companies shouldnt need 10 pages of TOS to say all the obvious things, and appealing to this idea that only whats written down is what matters shouldnt allow for just any arbitrary set of things to be written down and called reasonable
I have never considered this perspective, but this fits very well with people's actions. Thank you for sharing.
To me, the system of codified law and courts makes intuitive sense, and most people misunderstand or abuse the system. But other people's intuitive understanding of the law as you mentioned is a much easier way to understand and actually IS a rough approximation of what the system does.
The other caveat is if you're a historically persecuted minority group, then those assumptions toward law enforcement don't usually apply. And now the political opposition to the current US administration is also feeling that way.
the rubiks cube is in P space, but has a large state space
towers of hanoi is also in P-space, has a trick to latch onto, and is still popular - though maybe this strays from being interesting and is popular for different reasons
> towers of hanoi is also in P-space, has a trick to latch onto, and is still popular
Is it? It's popular to introduce people to, and it's fun to play with for a bit, but once you understand how to solve it, there's basically no value in replaying it.
there is also the unspoken alignment of those people from being of the same age / time period.
humans additionally have a spectacular ability to use absurdity and loose definitions of things in ways that play with this unspoken alignment to communicate other ineffable ideas and/or build community. I'd go as far as to say we play with this unspoken alignment more so than we say exactly what we mean.
I would think this behavior, although often seen in meme culture nowadays, would be highly relevant to religious communication and documentation of the past. I think actually trying to write down an exact meaning is a modern phenomenon and is observed in the over articulation and general structure of "legalese", for which I dont think the bible resembles very much in spirit in any way.
Sociopaths genuinely reject that. What you’re feeling is the gap between modern knowledge and faith: our shared moral standards were historically upheld by religious authority in a radically different world, and in rejecting religion we often mistakenly discard faith as the foundation of morality itself. Moral relativism can describe the fact that people’s values conflict without requiring us to accept all morals, but it is naive to think all moral frameworks can peacefully coexist or that universal agreement exists beyond majority consensus enforced by authority. We are fortunate that most people today agree torturing babies is wrong, but that consensus is neither inevitable nor self-sustaining, and preserving what we believe is good requires accepting uncertainty, human fallibility, and the need for shared moral authority rather than assuming morality enforces itself.
maybe that was too strongly worded but there was an expectation for zstd to outperform. So the fact it didnt means the result was unexpected. i generally find it helpful to understand why something performs better than expected.
Isn't zstd primarily designed to provide decent compression ratios at amazing speeds? The reason it's exciting is mainly that you can add compression to places where it didn't necessarily make sense before because it's almost free in terms of CPU and memory consumption. I don't think it has ever had a stated goal of beating compression ratio focused algorithms like brotli on compression ratio.
I actually thought zstd was supposed to be better than Brotli in most cases, but a bit of searching reveals you're right... Brotli, especially at the highest compression levels (10/11), often exceeds zstd at the highest compression levels (20-22). Both are very slow at those levels, although perfectly suitable for "compress once, decompress many" applications which the PDF spec is obviously one of them.
your ability to articulate yourself cleanly comes across in this post in a way that I feel AI is trying to be and never quite reaches as well.
I completely agree that the ambitions of AI proponents to replace workers is insulting. You hit the nail on the head with pointing out that we simply dont write everything down. And the more common sense / well known something is the less likely it is to be written down, yet the more likely it might be needed by an AI to align itself properly.
im a systems engineer and cost analyst who has put together some modeling myself as well. as a personal investment on your house, i agree. The economic value of solar seems to be best applied as neighborhood or block purchases, like as part of a co-op or hoa. they would need dedicated infrastructure like a communal parking lot with solar overhead, or running them on the property line borders with an easement underneath for servicing, using property fencing as main support (with upgraded fencing)
basically, the way it really makes sense (to me) is to integrate it as part of a micro-grid system, possibly with generator backups and everything to also keep the lights on in the entire neighborhood if the main grid goes down.
its a higher upfront cost on paper, but way less variables with the roof and you are grouping multiple peoples needs together so the gamble goes down on repairs. the poles for ground-mounting can be used for 40 - 60 years, so you would get multiple panels out of them
This is also true of heating and cooling, and I've never understood why we (in the US) build relatively dense housing communities but don't implement things like this. Having a separate air conditioner for each home, especially in a condominium/townhouse complex, has never made sense to me as it's so inefficient compared to central heating/cooling.
the people having a good experience with it want the people who arent to share how they are using it so they can tell them how they are doing it wrong.
honestly though idc about coding with it, i rarely get to leave excel for my work anyway. the fact that I can OCR anything in about a minute is a game changer though
i think its supposed to be fun and if you get rules lawyered then you get to complain about it and have people agree with you at parties that you should have won the bet
i dont think it is intended to be used as a meaningful investment platform, or even a serious gambling establishment like an actual casino.
its whole angle is "wouldnt it be funny if you could bet on ____" and then you can
that is to say, the law only applies to you if you do "bad" things. and ill be honest, there is a level of truth to this to me. from a practical standpoint, it is infeasible to formally understand every nuance of every law ever created just to be a citizen. The underlying core social contract does appear to be one of "if you do 'good' things, generally the law will agree with you and if it doesnt then we wont hold it against you the first time"
*the important caveat here is that this leaves a rather disgustingly large and exploitable gap in what is considered good vs bad behavior, with some people having biases that can spin any observable facts into good or bad based on their political agenda. Additionally, personal biases like racism for example, influence this judgement to value judge your actions in superficial ways
reply