The comment about your wife is related to his comments about you beating him and breaking his arm. He’s decided you’re abusive and are part of the reason his childhood was so messed up. It probably helps him cope with a few things. For example he doesn’t feel guilty when he abuses you or your mom’s hospitality or generosity because you owe him. Anyways he decided that you’re abusive and so you probably beat up your wife worse than he does. It’s self protective, if you’re worse than him (he assaulted his wife and you kill yours) then he can still be a good guy in his own mind by comparison.

He sounds pretty fucked up honestly, and his coping mechanisms are maladaptive. If you want to help him, reach out occasionally to let him know you’re there. Don’t give him money or things or a place to stay. He doesn’t see you as a role model, he sees you as someone who owes him Infinity for what you’ve done, meaning he can abuse you in significant ways and it’s all fair in his mind. You owe him for what you did.

If he ever realises that he’s the problem in his life, and that to make his life better he needs to BE better, only then can you help him.

You can’t help someone be better if they don’t want to be better.

I think it’s desktop only, but I rarely use the mobile brave app.

Yeah 0- 49% is an F 50-59 is a D 60-69 is a C 70-79 is a B 80-89 is an A 90-100 is an A+

It means that 10-20% of exams and assignments can be used to really challenge students without unfairly affecting grades of those who meet curriculum expectations.

If you miss key information the summary is useless.

If the structure of the code is bad then using that boilerplate will harm your ability to maintain the code FOREVER.

There are use cases for it, but it has to be used by someone who understands the task and knows the outcome they’re looking for. It can’t replace any measure of skill just yet, but it behaves as if it can which is hazardous.

47% is a fail. 81% is an A-… Sure the AI can fail faster than a human can succeed, but I can fail to run a marathon faster than an athlete can succeed.

I guess by the standards we use to judge AI I’m a marathon runner!

Not even that complex anymore, just download brave and “open private window with tor”. Then go to the website and download the data.

Downloading a “tor browser” always sound more “hacker” than it is these days.

I completely agree. This is going to free kids from someone taking a picture of them doing something relatively harmless and extorting them. “That was AI, I wasn’t even at that party 🤷”

I can’t wait for childhood and teenage life to being a bit more free and a bit less constantly recorded.

Nobody is giving away i9 hardware at i3 prices otherwise everyone would buy the cheapest model and part it out for massive profit.

Look at some n95 NUCs on Amazon, or any mini pc really. Often less than 200$ for a full windows PC that can stream anything you throw at it.

Space x doesn’t work thanks to Musk. It works DESPITE him, and it requires careful management.

I’m not really going to argue with that much defeatism, I just want to clarify that being a person that’s enjoyable to be with doesn’t mean being a Hollywood movie definition of a “fun” person. It doesn’t require you to change into someone else. It just means you work to improve yourself, reduce the aspects of yourself you don’t like and increase the prevalence of aspects of yourself you do like.

You don’t need to become a “fun” person, just a YOU that you would want to spend time with.

Nobody is forcing you to improve yourself, but like I said before, if you wouldn’t want to spend time with yourself why would anyone else? Even if you live the rest of your life alone, would you not prefer being able to enjoy your own company?

Finding a partner has two roadblocks.

1. Would you date yourself?
2. Could you date yourself?

The first asks are you fun to be around? If you were a fly on the wall in your house would you think “this is a person I want to be with, their activities, demeanor, and level of self-care are something I find attractive”. If you don’t want to be with yourself why would anyone else? Work to being and staying a person you enjoy being around.

The second is more applicable to people who are alone and introverted. If you lived two streets over from yourself how could you meet yourself. If you’re not someone that ever interacts with new people then how can you meet anyone? Find ways to open yourself up to meeting people you want to be with and who want to be with you. This could be through hobby based communities, to socializing with classmates and co-workers, to meeting friends of friends, to joining new groups or classes you’re interested in.

What do you mean I can’t install siding on the inside… It’s called “siding” not “outsiding” it goes on every side!

The best part about this is that UMG WMG and SMG all simultaneously went “you can’t take an artist’s life work and exploit it, that’s unfair, it’s OUR job to take an artist’s life’s work and exploit it”

AI isn’t “like a person” it doesn’t “learn like a person” it doesn’t “think like a person” it’s nothing like a person. It’s a a machine that creates copies of whatever you put into it. It’s a machine that a real person, or group of people, own. These people TAKE all the stuff everyone else created and put it into their copy machine.

In fact it’s really easy to show that it’s a copy machine because the less stuff you put into it the more of a direct copy you get out of it. If you put only one song, or one artist, into it then virtually everything it creates would be direct copyright infringements. If you put all of the worlds music into it the copying becomes more blurred, more complex, more interesting, and therefore more valuable.

Sure AI is a great innovation, but if someone wants to put my work into a copying machine they’re going to have to acquire it from me legally.

No one is against AI, we’re just against the people who own the AI machines stealing our work without paying for it.

I chose NOT diddling kids!

I think you’re mixing copyright which protects works and patients which protect inventions as well as the timelines.

Stores in most developed countries, UK included, can refuse service only for legitimate reasons, and they have to do so uniformly based on fair and unbiased rules. If they don’t, they’re at risk of an unlawful discrimination suite.

https://www.milnerslaw.co.uk/can-i-choose-my-customers-the-right-to-refuse-service-in-uk-law

She didn’t do anything that would be considered a “legitimate reason”, and although applied uniformly, it’s difficult to prove that an AI model doesn’t discriminate against protected groups. Especially with so many studies showing the opposite.

I think she has as much standing as anyone to sue for discrimination. There was no legitimate reason to refuse service, AI models famously discriminate against women and minorities, especially when it comes to “lower class” criminal behavior like shoplifting.

That’s how a lot of stuff works, true. I don’t agree that can work with violence. I also don’t appreciate the conceptual response to very practical questions.

I live in a peaceful society. I wouldn’t want my neighbour to be able to use violence because my tree dropped it’s leaves on his side of the lawn. I wouldn’t want an alternate police force hired and paid by a group of white supremacists (current statistics aside) to enforce laws in a biased manner. Having other corporations able to use violence is an absolute dystopian nightmare and is 100% the cause of every dystopian fantasy world. If the government WASN’T empowered with violence then there is nothing to stop the above 3 scenarios. So I’m not sure what other “equalizing distribution” you’re imagining and I’m not certain a better one exists.

I am open minded, which is why I asked those 3 very specific questions. If your have a better idea I’m all ears. If your idea is just to open up the floodgates and hope for the best because that will equalise access to violence and more equal is more better, then I will keep treating libertarian ideology as a threat to civilization. Mostly ideas that sound nice, but no practicable solutions that don’t destroy society. Like communism.

Dude what the fuck? You do NOT want it to be legal for people to use violence to enforce their views on others. That’s what “might makes right” is and it’s how gangs are run. It’s brutal. Every positive consequence you imagine will be completely dwarfed by the depths of human violence and depravity this would unleash.