The whole company is like that. If things were as amazing as advertised, they wouldn't even need to advertise. Or to release models to the public at all.
> Being able to be brutally honest with each other about our misunderstandings
Being specific to misunderstandings is an element that's overlooked.
This advice tends to be taken onboard (often to extremes) by those who take it as a free pass to just say whatever comes to their mind, whenever they like, without explaining how they arrived there. Any excuse to avoid putting in effort to be understood or be conscious of the fact that human beings have emotions.
We are not robots.
I'm glad commenters here are aware of this, as HN sentiment is getting close to the point of treating each other as machines, whilst we train bots to have better communication skill such as empathetic reflection, and allow them more creativity and freedom.
Some people are more patient and sympathetic towards computers making mistakes and not following commands perfectly, or being too verbose, than we are with our fellow human beings.
Totally agree with this! Being "kindly honest" is way better than being "brutally honest". Being honest and direct is important of course. I have often found that delivering constructive criticism in the so-called sandwich manner often obfuscates the message, so delivering it directly is much better. However, being kind to the receiver of the feedback by having empathy for them and supporting them as they process that feedback will help land that message far more effectively than being "brutal" about it.
Aside from the poor tone of this style of writing, short declarative statements don't convey the same information and leave a confusing message.
Without knowing how you arrived at "the point", you are pushing all the work onto the recipient (or worse, every reader of your comment on HN) to verify what you say and how much they can trust you. That could involve researching, checking your credentials, or putting in effort to understand/overlook the emotional tone.
"This is the answer. I have the answer" style dumping of information is a poor form of human-human communication, unless you are directly answering a closed-ended question.
Ban reason and the moderator name were public on Something Awful, which allowed the community to respond (actively or passively), and for more senior moderators/admin to take public action against rogue moderators. The transparent audit trail countered the incentive to ban somewhat, but a lot of people also treating getting banned as a game.
It's because you can't reasonably put everything in the rules. They would be thousands of words and still have holes and special carve-outs, _and_ users will still argue about rules application if you say your rules cover everything.
It's more reasonable to have "a spirit of the law", so to speak.
Lemmy isn't simply Lemmy since it's federated. A screenshot like this is somewhat meaningless without specifying on which instance this happened. There are instances with very lax or even no moderation at all.
For the majority of large, well-federated instances, I don't think it's meaningless, because deletions also propagate to other instances.
If a mod on one server doesn't like something I say, and they delete my comment, all the other (well-behaved) federated instances will also delete my comment.
Of course this also creates problems in the other direction, like servers that ignore deletion requests.
That combined with a large amount of blocked instances across the board, I feel like you get into this "which direction would you like to piss into the wind" situation where you have no idea how many people/instances will actually see your message if at all.
The misguided who say they don’t need privacy suddenly have a dense memory of the thousands of times they’ve turned the lock on a bathroom door and consider the idea of deficating in full view as an alternative.
The meaning is to highlight the incredible silliness of the “nothing to hide” skawkers who sound like so many Soviet propagandists.
This is completely missing the point of why one needs privacy. Lack of it harms journalism and activism, making the government too powerful and not accountable. If only activists and journalists will try to have the privacy, it will be much easier to target them. Everyone should have privacy to protect them. Thus is what Snowden probably meant, not bathrooms.
If you think the benefit of privacy to society and individuals is limited to activists, jounrnalists and providing them cover you might have missed the point yourself. The sheer number of distinct benefits flowing from privacy make the "nothing to hide" argument utterly absurd to anyone capable of thought.
Democracy depends on a secret ballot. Start there.
Then move on to the fact that not every govt employee is honest. Some will be involved in organised crime. What about your family do you not want organised crime to know? Do you trust everyone in the government who might encounter you today? Do you trust everyone who might encounter you next year? In 10 years time? 20 years? Gotta trust them all!
The rule of law exists, in part, so that the strongest does not always get their way. Do you trust your insurance company and their outsourced contractors with knowing everything about your family when they refuse to pay your legitimate claim and you have to go to court? They have vastly more resources than you already.
There's plenty more, think them through.
By the time you have it that these people who don't care, they also don't want to be naked in the street or have their children be naked in public, do want freedom and democracy rather than soviet style tyranny, and don't want to be effectively targeted by criminals... If you need to continue, it's a lost cause and you're dealing with bad faith or total un-fixable idiocy.
First we would run into the spam-filter problem no different to email. Then we have to choose: do we concede to viewing the world through a lens of WhatEverAI, or train it locally on our own thoughts/views on the world, and hope that AI model is never compromised.
We break eggs into the known confines of a pan. We don't spray egg all over the place unless we want to end up with it on our face.
Even if it did make sense to "move fast and break things" inside working critical systems, doing so should surely be within the law and without going against the most basic of known security measures.
reply