I'm guessing it means that your use of the website is not contingent on you accepting (approving of) the terms presented. But there are plenty of other ways it could be reasonably interpreted. For instance, your access of the website is not contingent on the website operator approving said access.
> I'm guessing it means that your use of the website is not contingent on you accepting
I don't think it says that at all. Because "accepting" is the right word for this interpretation, as you point out. "Approval" is a different thing altogether. You can accept something without approving of it -- that's the main message in the Serenity Prayer and hundreds of self-help books that try to reframe that message, maybe to help it sink in, maybe just to grift a little.
If it was literally spelled out as "Your access is not conditioned on your approval" that could almost be taken as a threat -- you will access this whether you want to or not.
> For instance, your access of the website is not contingent on the website operator approving said access.
To me, this is clearly what it says. "(Your) access is not conditioned on (our) approval."
But, of course, since you read it differently, I have to agree that perhaps it's not as clear as I thought.
However...
Contracts and agreements, if ambiguous, are always interpreted in a light most favorable to the party who didn't draft them.
So, absolute worst case (for the website owner), if we combine your reading and mine, it reads "Your access is not conditioned on either your approval of these terms, or our approval of you."
Much larger attack forces are currently cruising the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and have been doing so for decades. The oceans are international waters, giant voids where it's hard to know where your enemy is.
They can be a thousand miles away from your coast and launch cruise missiles with more fire power than that of Pearl Harbour. If there is a radar/signal disturbance on your coast which can help them, they will take advantage of it.
Speaking of runway crossings specifically, you could have an automated backup, and require authorization from both ATC and the automated system to enter a runway.
Agreed; they're far better than the old style robots, which is what you'd have to deal with otherwise.
More generally, when done well, RAG is really great. I was recently trying out a new bookkeeping software (manager.io), and really appreciated the chatbot they've added to their website. Basically, instead of digging through the documentation and forums to try to find answers to questions, I can just ask. It's great.
Me too, but I wonder whether we're in the minority here. I'm sure there must be plenty of people who just call places to get information easily found via the web, or there wouldn't be so many automated phone systems that explain how to get information via their website.
I know someone who works on the voice response system for $LARGEBANK. She says that more than 95% of calls are just to find out a checking account balance.
That's fine, and there's no need for AI pretending to be a human, or to ask me to talk to a computer as if it is a human. Routine decision trees work really well here.
In fact, decision trees are nice because they tell your more or less up front what they're capable of.
What really sucks (AI or decision tree, either way) is when they don't let you easily speak with someone.
I'd argue a well designed AI assistant would be considerably better than a decision tree for that use case. Decision trees are slow because you normally need to wait through several options before getting to the one you're interested in. (Though sure, perhaps not if your call is literally for the most common thing.) But with an AI you could jump straight to what you're interested in.
"Hi, I'm the LargeBank AI Assistant. How can I help you?"
"I'd like to know the balance of my checking account."
And then authenticate and get the balance as usual. Simpler and faster.
Agreed that it becomes a problem if it's seen as a replacement for human agents though. In an ideal world it would actually free up the human agents for when they're actually needed. In reality it'll probably be some of each.
I believe that. Probably 95% of my support calls to online shops are about order status (aka: the website shows "in preparation" for a week already, I need to talk to a real person).
Often the relevant information is a pain to find on a website, but even if it isn't, the people who answer the phone often have important context like "Usually we do offer that recently but one of our suppliers..." or "We can do that, but maybe instead..." or "Oh the website isn't updated with..."
I dispute the convenience, but I think the science has been tested. When you open a regular fridge, because cold air is denser than warm air, much of the cold air immediately falls out, so the fridge needs to work to re-chill the air once you close it. Even when it isn't opened, some amount of cold air leaks out the seals toward the bottom of the fridge (and warmer air leaks in through the top). Chest fridge (or freezer) solves these problems.
That said, most of the thermal mass in the fridge is the food, and after that probably the shelving, so as long as the seals aren't blown, the turnover of air on opening isn't a huge deal.
The science here is also perfectly backed by empiric evidence. Just measure the kWh used in a year and compare. It doesn't really matter how a chest fridge is more efficient, it just is.
The convenience is not as easy to quantify, but I would bet that an experiment would quickly point out that chest fridges are terrible for elderly, children, and anyone with reduced mobility. I'd hypothesise that even able bodied people would get annoyed when they are cooking — I know I would be.
It's a cool idea, and might be great for a secondary fridge. For a primary fridge though, it's so much more convenient to have direct access to everything through a vertical door. I like energy efficiency, but I'm willing to pay 300kWh a year (around $40 here) for that convenience, let alone the space efficiency.
Most people in dense urban areas would actually pay less. By going vertical you’re freezing a whole m2 that was otherwise necessarily occupied by the fridge. In most places, 300 kWh is much cheaper than an extra irrevocable m2 for your fridge.
Plus, a horizontal fridge is just… convenient. You can’t even put things on top of a vertical fridge.
You can't. A chest fridge/freezer becomes a gravitational singularity sucking random items from every corner of the kitchen to its lid. You can keep trying to return them to their rightful place but in the end it is a fruitless task as the rate of accumulation becomes faster than your speed of repatriation and the contents of the freezer are eventually lost to time behind the "event horizon" of its surface.
They seem to have mixed up horizontal and vertical, and if they did, then my reading is that they're saying the cost of the extra floor space (and the loss of the "shelf" space on top of the fridge) when using a chest fridge makes the economics unfavourable for people in dense urban areas, even with the energy savings.
At least, I'm hoping that's what they meant. If they really meant horizontal and vertical in the way they used it then I've got no idea either.
I didn't get it until reading your comment, but I think perhaps they meant 'vertical' as in 'it opens vertically' (chest freezer)—i.e. they didn't mix them up exactly, just used them differently than we expected.
Yeah, I understand your first sentence, but the last part of their comment was
"Plus, a horizontal fridge is just… convenient. You can’t even put things on top of a vertical fridge."
Don't they mean a horizontal fridge is a chest fridge? Which would make it sound like they want their whole comment to be in support of a chest fridge? Which is why none of it makes any sense to me.
That's what makes me think they've simply mixed up horizontal and vertical, because you can't (conveniently) store things on top of a chest fridge, but you can store things on top of a vertical fridge. Basically I think they've got a coherent point if you swap vertical and horizontal throughout their whole comment.
Horizontal vs vertical is determined by the orientation of the object's longest dimension. Portrait pictures on a wall and fridges with doors that open out are vertical, landscape pictures on a wall and chest freezers are horizontal.
I have cabinets over my vertical fridge that has things put in it. There's only like a 15 cm gap between for airflow. How do you slap a cabinet on top of a horizontal fridge?
But if I put things on top of it, now I can't get at the food.
I mean, I have one of these as a meat freezer, and sometimes I put things on top of it, and then my wife gets mad at me and moves that thing somewhere because otherwise nobody can open it.
Things on top of my vertical fridge on the other hand (my cat for example), can stay there indefinitely.
Wouldn't a solution be to have the opening on the side and pull it toward you, like a "box on wheels"? As long as the sides of the "box" are thermally insulated, it seems like a sound solution for the stated problem (but certainly not one that's mechanically the cheapest/simplest).
A friend suggested a bottom-hinged door like that on a garbage chute, though well sealed, and as wide as the fridge, so the sides of the door don't get in the way of storing long objects in the fridge.
If you completely remodeled a kitchen around a chest fridge it might not be too terribly inconvenient. But the major blocker is that virtually every kitchen is designed with a perfect spot for a tall, relatively shallow fridge.
It's inconvenient as soon as you need to get something from the bottom of the fridge, kitchen layout does not change this one at all. And I grew up in a home with multiple chest fridges in addition to a shelved ones so I know the hurdles.
They are good to store something you're not accessing all the time though, like frozen berries etc.
Yeah, my in-laws literally stand around the fridge with it open for multiple minutes while they shuffle food around to get to things they've tetrised into the back, and then to re-organize once they've gotten what they need.
They periodically live with us because they're quite old at this point, and my wife and I have already discussed replacing our fridge/freezer combo with a standalone fridge and switching solely to a chest freezer in the mudroom just so they stop doing this with the freezer, too.
The freezer is almost entirely for things already in boxes anyway. Frozen wontons, frozen ice cream cones, microwaveable meals, frozen blocks of fish. It's all easy to organize in a chest freezer.
I'd never considered a chest fridge before, and if I didn't have a wife and kids, as of today I'd be seriously considering it. As it is, can't trust kids not to make an inaccessible mess of something like that, and wife wouldn't like the kitchen arrangement becoming wonky. Though the fridge's current position makes it clear a previous owner didn't understand anything about kitchen layouts when they remodeled a MCM home.
Maybe I could put a chest fridge there with cabinetry above (gap between), and then some place we currently have cabinets all the way to the floor, remove the bottom and put in another chest fridge.
Might be something to consider once we've fixed all the supreme fuckups previous owners did.
It inherently takes more usable space, there's no design that won't lose space, which makes them impractical in smaller homes. To visualise it, for those living in more spacious areas, imagine a "galley" kitchen: 8 spaces one standard unit size, arranged in 4 on each of two opposite walls, with an aisle in between. One unit may be lost to a door. One must be a hob, another the sink. The hob must not have storage above within 60-70cm vertically, due to fire risk; and limits what may be adjacent as well. A window may prevent the use of some spaces above waist height.
A door that opens outwards uses space that has to be clear anyway because that's where you walk. A door that opens upwards takes space that could have been used for another appliance or storage, or the upper half of a fridge twice the size.
The only way round that would be for it to be able to slide outwards, but that's also inconvenient.
Having said all that, they are a great idea if you have the space.
Unfortunately we don't have the luxury of voting for a political party that matches every one of our priorities. I don't support this bill; I do support some other aspects of the Liberal platform. Likewise with the other major parties. I vote for the one that best reflects my overall views.*
*Well, either that or I vote strategically for the candidate I can tolerate who I also think has a chance of winning my riding.
I'm not sure a billionaire building a bunker is much different from you or me buying fire insurance. It's not that I expect my house to burn down, and it certainly won't prevent me doing everything I can to prevent fires. Even with it, my house burning down would be really bad. But I can afford the insurance, so why not have what protection I can?
> “How do I maintain authority over my security force after the event?”
The paragraph that follows is
> This single question occupied us for the rest of the hour. They knew armed guards would be required to protect their compounds from raiders as well as angry mobs. One had already secured a dozen Navy Seals to make their way to his compound if he gave them the right cue. But how would he pay the guards once even his crypto was worthless? What would stop the guards from eventually choosing their own leader?
So how is it "much different"? These people are focused on maintaining their power and social status in a hierarchy. They are not just getting insurance. They're looking to maintain social control
What about adding something like, "When asked a question, just answer it without assuming any implied criticism or instructions. Questions are just questions." to claude.md?
reply