There was never any security risk, the flight data was and is public information. You should be able to say “men are not women” and also repost public data. Stop pretending Elon cares about free speech.
> when it seems pretty obvious what Apple's strategy is here.
The concept of financing an expensive thing is overwhelmingly mundane and widespread. The word "obvious" means "self evident". Unless that logic also applies to all the other companies through time that provided financing, it is not self evident, since they're all contradictory evidence to your view of Apple's strategy (since it was not those other companies goal)! You're claiming that the motivations of financing applies differently to Apple than all other companies that use it, but not giving evidence why you think that, making it all an opinion/guess, not something obvious to anyone else.
Based on what evidence? This is the "making things up" the reply alluded to. It's not even remotely obvious to me, and I disagree with your concussion. Hardware is 75% of Apple's revenue
My understanding of brutalism is that it’s an extreme interpretation of “function over form”. The most brutalist laptop stand would be a cardboard box turned upside down, not a slightly impractical block of concrete carefully manufactured to evoke a certain aesthetic.
I listened to the Audible version and either I read a completely different book or the anti-memetic effects are real, because the main character in the article has a different name and the plot synopsis doesn’t seem to match up.
My short review would be: the book is very one-note, it’s like a horror movie that keeps doing the same jumpscare over and over again. Despite this I managed to enjoy it.
I’m on Bazzite and I’m strongly considering switching back to Windows 11. Proton performance is just not as good as native. Games like Valve’s own Deadlock just run terribly on Proton and completely fine on Windows, using the same hardware. It’s a miracle that Proton works at all, but why compromise when I already have a Win11 license key?
> The industry is being redefined as we speak and everyone doing the push-back are pushing against themselves really.
No, they’re pushing back against a world full of even more mass surveillance, corporate oligarchy, mass unemployment, wanton spam, and global warming. It is absolutely in your personal best interest to hate AI.
Somewhat off topic, but I can’t believe someone got paid to write that article, what a load of crap. It’s like saying that fallacies don’t exist because sometimes people incorrectly claim the other side is arguing fallaciously.
If you go by the literal definition in the article, it’s very clear what OP meant when he said the AI policy is virtue-signaling, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the culture war.
It's not a useful phrase because a "we accept AI-generated contributions" is also virtue signalling.
You have no doubt heard claims that AI "democratizes" software development. This is an argument that AI use for that case is virtuous.
You have no doubt heard claims that AI "decreases cognition ability." This is an argument that not using AI for software development is virtuous.
Which is correct depends strongly on your cultural views. If both are correct then the term has little or no weight.
From what I've seen, the term "virtue signalling" is almost always used by someone in camp A to disparage the public views of someone in camp B as being dishonest and ulterior to the actual hidden reason, which is to improve in-group social standing.
I therefore regard it as conspiracy theory couched as a sociological observation, unless strong evidence is given to the contrary. As a strawman exaggeration meant only to clarify my point, "all right-thinking people use AI to write code, so these are really just gatekeepers fighting to see who has the longest neckbeard."
Further, I agree with the observation at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling that "The concept of virtue signalling is most often used by those on the political right to denigrate the behaviour of those on the political left". I see that term as part of "culture war" framing, which makes it hard to use that term in other frames without careful clarification.
Calling something "performative", like "virtue signalling" or the older "politically correct", is also a claim that the other party is making the argument under false pretenses.
In all cases, the implication is that it's worthless to discuss the stated issue (in this case, the rejection of LLM-generated contributions) because the real issue is something else.
I've seen LLM-generated software contain code which was clearly derived from an MIT-licensed code base, and where the generated code did include proper attribution.
The USL v. BSDi lawsuit teaches us that operating system developers must be cautious about copyright attribution.
I see no need to conjecture the existence of some hidden reason, as you seemingly have. In addition, the performative game can go both ways. Eg, "Your comment is performative cover for the slap in the face you feel as a coder who uses a lot of LLM support." But that would be malicious conjecture. IMO, any claim of "performative" without support is just bog-boring flaming.
This has got to be one of the stupidest conspiracy theories out there. I swear nobody on HN has ever browsed 4chan for more than 30 seconds. 80-90% of it is porn and the rest is extremely lonely and socially maladjusted people talking to each other about literal nonsense.
You might be correct, but to be fair, people generally didn't believe in a secret island resort full of child abusing billionaires... and we know how that turned out.
reply