tripu @tripu@social.cleverlibre.org

@slaeg

@pablobm

😏

1. I do
1. I didn't

@pablobm

Yes, it was purposely vague. And easy (searching the quote verbatim would give you the answer). But since you asked, I think the remaining ~17% would be “grandparents, siblings or other relatives or guardians, or health workers”.

> _“The mother was the perpetrator in 76.5% of the cases, the father in 6.7%”_

What is it?

My #lunch today in the sun at home: double #vegan #patty complete with fried onion, melted vegan cheese, tomato and lettuce.

God bless #WFH.

@GiantGroundSloth

You are right. I know LLMs don't optimize for truth. It was a curiosity of mine; nothing consequential.

I did confirm this with an acquaintance pharmacist of mine.

About humans knowing what they don't know: it's funny you say that, because at least one of the pharmacists I asked about this made all sorts of contortions and tried to explain to me the concept of volume, the idea of density, what a mg is, etc — before admitting she didn't know what that mysterious “IU” meant 😆

A few #photos of yesterday's #ACX Everywhere meetup in #Madrid

#SSC #event #rationality #EffectiveAltruism #Spain

@chanakya @malwaretech

That situation stinks, and any libertarian would agree — because it has nothing to do with #libertarianism or #FreeMarkets.

One of the tenets of libertarianism is free association and the sacredness of contracts. Either you ceded your rights to negotiate with ISPs to your apartment complex (check your contract), or you didn't, in which case what they did is illegal and you should be able to revert the situation (and all libertarians will cheer for you).

Note that the polar opposite to a “free-market libertarian dream” here would be much worse: ISPs would be all public, or there would be just one ISP, or the government could mandate what ISP you use and how, and you would be definitely stuck with that.

#ChatGPT just answered a burning question of mine that two human _pharmacists_ could not answer. Yipee!

https://chat.openai.com/share/08da5a60-93ea-456d-be95-467da614ff78

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFiDnErxU_A

4 #WFH / 1 #office

#work week

is the perfect balance

@freemo @georgetakei

Hear, hear

@lxo

That's for sure.

I'm glad I'm on an instance where I can use words like “paedophilia” and not be given an immediate warning by admins :)

@Arotrios

I think I understand the difference in shock value. My point is that morality (and the law) shouldn't depend on how shocking something is, but on objective measures of moral worth, consequences, etc.

Open-heart surgery is very shocking to watch, but it's very good. Hundreds of children dying every day of diarrhoea in distant countries isn't shocking (we got used to it, and we mostly ignore it), but it's very bad. etc.

Similarly, if killing someone is worse than raping someone, we should be
at least as vocal opposing depictions of the former as we are about the latter, regardless of what is more shocking.

@lxo

I don't think it's about preventing victims from reviving their trauma.

For that, we have rating systems, advisories, reviews and art critics. And adult consumers can immediately quit whatever they are reading, watching or listening to.

Also, whoever has been ever tortured, beaten, or attacked may be a survivor of a murder attempt — and they are definitely a survivor of violence. Wouldn't all those people be “triggered” by depictions of violence, too?