Well, if that’s how it worked before, they must’ve changed it. I installed it last night without paying and it never blocked me.
Well, if that’s how it worked before, they must’ve changed it. I installed it last night without paying and it never blocked me.
Are you talking about DeArrow? The website gives you the option to pay or just download without paying.
That only applies to cash. The rich have the greater majority of their wealth in assets, so they likely won’t even give a second thought to losing all of their cash. Who it’s actually going to hurt are the middle class workers nearing retirement. The ones who make enough to have some semblance of a retirement fund and who have also moved this fund to cash to reduce volatility.
Yep. It’s part of their mating ritual. You can learn more about it at c/fuckcars.
I have no qualms about AI being used in products. But when you have to tell me that something is “powered by AI” as if that’s your main selling point, then you do not have a good product. Tell me what it does, not how it does it.
You ever use a paper cup? That’s basically what they are.
Oh, so you mean local vs external, not browser-based vs other local solutions.
What makes the built-in database easier to attack than a separate one?
Microsoft is working very hard at getting into this data game. Don’t think they won’t try making similar deals.
Are we looking at a future where we need a search engine to tell us which search engine to use for your queries?
I’d usually start with easily digestible content like YouTube videos or ChatGPT. At this point, I’m not too concerned about the correctness of the information. It mainly gives me vocabulary that I can then look up for further reading along with the perspective of one or two individuals. That might be all I care about, and if so, I’d stop there and go on with my day. If I want to dive deeper, I’ll look up textbooks and papers on the topic, or any other relevant primary sources. Basically do a light literature review.
Locals: shop around for the place that sells it at the lowest cost. Take extra time to go to different stores for different products even if they’re all available in one place. Regular price too high? Vote with your wallet and don’t buy it. Good price but you don’t have much money? Buy less.
Wealthy foreigner: This is cheap. I’ll take it.
No one needs to know your income. The price may be the same for everyone, but if you’re willing to pay a higher price, then they’ll be more likely to keep the higher price, thus reducing everyone else’s buying power. If you buy more than the locals and help eat up their stock, that again incentivises keeping prices where they are, or even increasing them. The storekeepers don’t care about how much money you have. They look at whether things sell or not, then make their decisions based on that.
Anything we can provide is just a drop in the ocean of data they already have. Plus, this was how image generation worked before we got diffusion models (see “generative adversarial networks”) and they never reached the level of image quality that diffusion models did.
I get the impression that many drug dealers would be happy to take gift cards as payment.
I’m trying to help OP reach an answer to their question, therefore the definitions I’m working with are the same as that of OP. What I personally believe should be categorized as a “higher being” is irrelevant because if it’s different from OP’s definition, it won’t help them reach their desired answer.
I don’t think OP is asking about the existence of humans, or animals, or any other physical entity. If they were, you can trivially say that you exist, and therefore god exists. That’s unless you want to go into ontology and question what it means to “exist”, which I’m pretty sure also isn’t what OP intended.
Anything that you would call a “god”.
If I give an ostensive definition, I would say it includes the beings like the Abrahamic god, or Olympian gods, and exclude humans, animals, bacteria, the planet we live on, and objects we handle in our day to day lives. I’ll tentatively draw the line at any being that is not bound to the laws of physics as we understand them today.
Occam’s razor doesn’t mean that the simplest explanation is always true, but rather that it’s usually the most likely to be true.
Using simplicity as a measure of how likely something is to be true always felt a little anthropocentric. How do we determine that something is simple if not via the systems and abstractions that are easy for human minds to comprehend?
If you’re talking specifically about the Abrahamic God, sure. But if it’s about the existence of any higher being, then there’s no contradiction here.
Much faster to skim the contents of an article than a video.