Your comment made me realize that maybe we're just going through the transition to a collectively better understanding of people. Right now we sort of have to pass through the clinical diagnosis/therapy terms in order to recognize something as not being a moral failure/making someone less valuable as a person. And then the next step we're building to is maybe like acceptance of people's differences without needing to make reference to diagnostic labels. Kind of like what's happened with queerness: past - fluid, undefined, marginalized; present - labels, understanding, less marginalization; future - moving beyond the need for labels in order for people to accept and understand.
If someone is overly aggressive, or rarely fulfills promises, or is very negative about things, or has a very fragile ego — it absolutely makes them less valuable as a person to others. Just look up any definitions of the word “valuable”
Word embeddings (that 1000-dimension vector you mention) are not new. No comment on the rest of your comment, but that aspect of LLMs is "old" tech - word2vec was published 11 years ago.
A little strange to compare it to palm reading, I feel like a more apt comparison is some other random medical field like podiatry. I wouldn't expect my friends' podiatrist usage to come up, so I'm sure more of my friends than I know have been to one. And presumably, like with podiatry, all the people who need professional therapists are people who are experiencing issues in the relevant area.
one instance I can remember immediately - lead SRE turns off an alert for some DLQ that has been finicky and experiencing periodic issues, often requiring intervention from the on-call team. he doesn’t tell the on call team he turned this off, suspecting that after a day or so something downstream will blow up. Then it does, he appears out of nowhere to save the day with the precise solution and looks like a genius for it.
At my place we would wonder why the alert was turned off which would most likely have been audit logged in some way. Perhaps they only play chaos monkey in systems where you can change things anonymously.
Have you never heard of a volunteer firefighter starting fires? It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. (And maybe with professional firefighters, I don't know.)
To my biased ears it sounds like these configuration-like files are a borderline DSL that maybe isn't being treated as such. I feel like that's a common issue - people assume because you call it a config file, it's not a language, and so it doesn't get treated as actual code that gets interpreted.
Taken as a whole, the title guidelines feel more focused on titles of articles, rather than whole website titles. I can understand the complaint, but in my opinion this title is fine. The title just feels a little... bare without the note.
Oh wow, I haven't heard of theis "plastic pollution treaty" it sounds super promising! I think one of the things that makes this issue so popular is just how obvious it is to see plastic trash all over the place. Climate change and carbon emissions can be a bit abstract, but plastic pollution is everywhere, and extremely visible.
I don't have super strong feelings on congestion pricing, but I'm a bit skeptical of anyone who says working class people are the major car users in NYC.
But all that aside, why aren't we talking about the insantiy that is free street parking. I have to pay $$$ for my small apartment, but your car gets to hang out all day for free? If you live and work in Manhattan, especially the congestion zone, you don't need a car for personal use.
I'm personally increasingly less interested in language-focused critiques when it comes to systemic issues. The article makes interesting points, but I think the effort it's trying to make is kind of on a euphemism treadmill. The article even says it - the issue is not with the terminology itself, but with the valuation of certain skillsets over certain other ones under our current economic system. It's also a bit pedantic - in this context it doesn't really make sense to use the dictionary to cite the "hierarchy" of what a word means. The word is being used in a specific context, and so it makes more sense to talk about it there.
I'd think I'd be more sympathetic if there were an alternative advocated for that wasn't just "don't refer to this concept". The concept itself isn't problematic - non "computery" people think about computers differently, and it is useful to discuss non-computer-expert users.
Even just thinking about other terminology - we use BIPOC for "non-white" because umbrella terms are useful. It's not that we shouldn't have a term, it's that maybe there's a better one.
It's a list of historically underrepresented characteristics, and membership in one group does not imply membership in all. "Tall, dark, and handsome" doesn't mean everyone tall is tan.
Probably should have just said POC in my parent comment to skip all this side discussion, but the repetition is the point. - it's used for emphasis.
From wikipedia:
"The term aims to emphasize the historic oppression of black and indigenous people, which is argued to be superlative and distinctive in U.S. history at the collective level."
> "Tall, dark, and handsome" doesn't mean everyone tall is tan.
Correct, but everyone who is tall, dark, and handsome is dark. The person you're replying to is asking: don't "black" and "indigenous" fall under "POC", since POC basically just means "not white"? Or at least black should fall under it.
