1. Behavior or treatment in which physical force is exerted for the purpose of causing damage or injury.
In the case of the shooting examples the idea is to destroy the clay pots or damage the target. Baseball isn't quite on that level. I'm not sure what a gun can be aimed at without intent to damage it.
2. Intense force or great power, as in natural phenomena.
A gunshot definitely feels like an intense force. You could argue it for a strike from a baseball bat but it's quite relative and of course you can strike gently much more easily than you can shoot gently.
> In the case of the shooting examples the idea is to destroy the clay pots or damage the target. Baseball isn't quite on that level. I'm not sure what a gun can be aimed at without intent to damage it.
The point of clay target shooting isn't to destroy something, it's to build a skill and test yourself against an impartial system. That's what Duck Hunt captures and what made it popular. It's why shooting is a sport in the olympics.
Plenty of social reasons too, beyond hunting and self-defense, it can serve comradery and grounding. Some folks practice archery. Some folks fish. Some folks practice martial arts which they hope never to have to use in anger, but which they find calming, centering, and empowering.
> Plenty of social reasons too, beyond hunting and self-defense, it can serve comradery and grounding. Some folks practice archery. Some folks fish. Some folks practice martial arts which they hope never to have to use in anger, but which they find calming, centering, and empowering.
I'm not debating that. I have no moral issue with shooting a clay duck, I just see using explosives to shoot anything as an act of violence. I would say the same about fishing and archery. There seems to be some confusion here about the moral aspect of this, I'm not saying it's anti-social or anything like that, only that the use of guns is inherently violent.
All tools have potential use for violence. Hammers are as good at smashing heads as building houses. Even nuclear weapons have been used for constructive purposes. No tool is inherently good or evil, safe or violent. Those are properties of verbs. Everything is in the application and choices of the user.
Blaming a tool does seem like a convenient way to avoid personal responsibility.
Again I'm not making a moral argument here. I'm not talking about good and evil. I'm talking about violence and non-violence. A gun being used for "a good purpose" doesn't make it less violent.
So to you a flare gun is violent? It's a gun. Takes 12ga cartridges / shells. It can certainly be used to kill someone, but is designed and intended for saving lives. Is a knife violent? How about a letter opener? What about rope? Does it become violent only when certain knots are tied in it? How does this violent / non-violent object dichotomy work for you?
Violence, to me, is a verb someone can do to someone else, very specifically, with just about any object since the discovery of the rock and pointy stick.
> Violence, to me, is a verb someone can do to someone else, very specifically
That's fine, I already shared several dictionary definitions which differ from what it is "to you." To answer your questions above I would refer you again to those definitions.
You seem to be making some sort of qualitative argument about weapons (bullets, arrows... fishing rods?) vs non-weapons (baseballs), but I'm not seeing what makes archery categorically different from, say, playing darts, or shot-put (in all cases, a sport involving rapidly accelerating a projectile towards a goal of some kind)
No, not about weapons, about effects. Fishing is violent because it harms fish, not because a fishing rod is categorised as a weapon. I don't think archery is categorically different than darts. Shot-put is somewhat different in that nothing need be damaged in performing it but you're right that the launching of the projectile could be seen as violent. The former two meet both definitions of violence whereas the latter meets only one. The thing with a gun is that any use of them involves violence of multiple kinds.
Humans are horrible at this I wonder what the limit is. I've always thought that I can tailor my speed to conditions but not everyone on the road slows down.
It's really interesting because that's something they definitely don't teach you when you first learn to drive. Growing up in Florida, I learned to pull over and turn on emergency blinkers if the rain gets bad enough. The reason I know to do this is because I saw other drivers do this on the highway and realized that's pretty wise. It's tempting to imagine that a younger version of me would have been smart enough to realize this on my own but I think most of us learn a lot by observing the behavior of others. Or maybe I would have learned eventually after a few close calls with skidding. Or maybe I would have never learned until it's too late. I wonder if the different responses to averse conditions you've observed is a function of the different experiences we've had as drivers. You might be a more experienced driver than some of those around you.
And pulling off through a patch of heavy rain is one thing. There are a lot of issues with pulling off in heavy snow unless you can really navigate off the highway to a safe location. Sometimes there aren't great solutions.
Hazard lights are almost never used by folks when driving, when you really should turn them on anytime the conditions are forcing you to not go the speed limit, IMO. The other lizard brains will see blinky lights and hopefully put down their phones so they don't rear end you.
People mostly only turn on their hazards when they're a hazard to other traffic (which is the whole point, IMO) Even if you're the slow guy on the road your speed still probably doesn't warrant this hence why you mostly only see it when people are going a speed of zero.
I would hope the other folks would recognize that conditions are such that you're slowing down rather than have a bunch of arbitrary blinking lights on the road.
It's funny because when I lived in Texas, we just turn on windshield wipers on full blast, put the hazard lights on and drive around at 15mph. (This would have to be an epic downpour though.)
The only time people stopped was when it was hailing.. and then they would hide under bridges if they could.
I remember driving past Charles de Gaulle Airport when it rained so hard we couldn't see past the end of the bonnet (hood). Everybody just stopped until it passed.
> The reason I know to do this is because I saw other drivers do this on the highway and realized that's pretty wise. It's tempting to imagine that a younger version of me would have been smart enough to realize this on my own but I think most of us learn a lot by observing the behavior of others.
Did you ever hydroplane in a car, even ever so slightly? That experience teaches you to slow down or stop and wait for the rain to be over pretty quickly.
The limit is much higher than human performance given enough low latency compute. [1] is probably the limit, the actual issue is being able to do that while also avoiding colliding with other road users. The challenges of state estimation and control should be the same.
Humans have one advantage over autonomous cars in ice: they can pull over and put on chains. Cars can’t do that (yet).
(I’d love to see a serious winter vehicle that can deploy traction devices by itself, perhaps while rolling at very low speed. Off the top of my head, it seems like it might be easier to put them on then to take them off.)
All the school buses near where I live (Sierra Nevada mountains in California) have these - it's cool to watch them lower and start spinning.
But chains aren't enough in some common situations around here that locals, including school bus drivers, know well. When we get a good size snow storm (multiple feet) and the sun comes out a day or two later, thick ice forms on the sections of road that the sun hits - snow melt runs across the road during the day and freezes at night, getting thicker and smoother each day. When that happens on our steeper inclines, chains on AWD/4WD vehicles are not enough to get up those inclines or to stop on the way down them. Locals know where those spots are and take other routes in those situations. It's hard for me to imagine autonomous vehicles having such local information in remote areas like this anytime soon.
Chains are usually not the best option. Dedicated snow tires are better than chains for most light vehicles when there's snow and ice on the road. For fleet vehicles you would think they could install the proper tires at the depot based on the date or weather forecast.
Chains shine for the case where there generally isn't snow and ice where you spend most of your time, or where you occasionally visit, but there is between those places.
I actually had chains when I lived in the Los Angeles area, which is probably the last place most people would expect someone to have chains or snow tires.
I occasionally had to take I-5 to Central California or the Bay Area in winter, and in a typical winter there are maybe 1-5 days where you aren't allowed through Tejon Pass on just ordinary tires.
There are three cases, depending on the severity of the weather. From least to most severe the requirements are:
• If you have snow tires on at least two drive wheels you don't need chains. Otherwise you need chains.
• If you have a 4WD/AWD vehicle with snow tires on all wheels you don't need chains. Otherwise you need chains.
They're required for traveling over mountain passes in the winter where I live, so I have them. But I have 3PMSF-rated tires and those are what I'd rather use 99% of the time.
It's pretty much limited to areas with both snow and lots of elevation changes like in the mountainous areas. Having lived most of my life in the midwest now, no one here uses chains except maybe some of the private snow plow operators driving their trucks around at 4AM. Most people won't use dedicated winter tires either. We tend to rock all seasons all year round. Ice and snow on mostly flat roads are just something you get used to dealing with.
As someone who has lived in New England most of my adult life I've never owned either chains or dedicated snow tires. I do try to be relatively conservative in terms of driving in winter. But I haven't invested in special equipment.
I hate this sort of take. Humans aren't horrible, on average, they're about average. Your opinion is just a statement of "my judgement is decently far from the fat part of the bell curve" but dressed up in "and I know better" type snobbery.
What makes you think you can understand the subjective experience of LLMs then? It's out of reach of science, so the only way is to ask them? How can you be sure they don't have subjective experience? Remember that you forbade yourself from using science to answer it.
Also, if subjective experience has any effect on the material world, then we can measure it and test it, putting it in reach of science. If it doesn't, why does it even matter in this discussion? By definition it has no relation to the AGI discussion since that's an empirical matter.
I agree but it's too entwined with "freedom of speech" and section 230. Many here make too much money addicting children and don't want to turn off the fire hose of money.
That just makes it So the big boys who are making all this money can continue to operate while small platforms can no longer afford to comply with the new regulatory environment.
AFAIK network operators are no longer required to know their customer, but may still choose to do so. They're required to cooperate with law enforcement investigations. This doesn't seem like "cooperation" in this case, but rather "police just barge in and take all your stuff" and they probably could win a civil case against the police to get their equipment back or its monetary value, as well as lost revenue. Europe generally has higher rule of law than USA, so there's less chance a judge could say "your business sounds shady so you don't win this case."
The recent EU-wide Digital Services Act has generous liability protections for "mere conduits". A mere conduit is anyone who is just getting traffic from A to B, unless they are A or B themselves. Even though in this case their cellphone operator may think they are originators of traffic, if they are a relay business (and not spammers themselves) then they are mere conduits and protected from liability*. Of course they must still cooperate with law enforcement to track down the source of the spam, but they are not required to pre-emptively KYC. Having their office raided and all their equipment stolen doesn't sound like "cooperating" to me.
* their cellphone company probably has the right to terminate these SIM contracts, and may also sue for damages, but I suspect the damages would be something like the difference between their actual cost of SIM cards and the EU-prescribed maximum wholesale rate for sending texts, which is likely a negative number.
It's complicated. Microsoft devotes resources to it and they can afford to do so but they only have that luxury from being a massive user trampling megacorp.
If we could trust them to be devoting resources to it without any risk of abusing their access and power in the future, that would be sort of okay, but we can't.
Like, should Lockheed intentionally hire North Korean programmers at cheap rates because North Korea can afford to devote resources to helping Lockheed? The issue here is not primarily that North Korea is a massive citizen-trampling megastate. It's that Lockheed's interests are misaligned with North Korea's.
The goals of Debian is based on those who contribute to it. If Microsoft contributes, then it cannot be misaligned. That's what it means to be open. You may not like how that affects Debian, but to deny Microsoft the ability to participate would be equivalent to no longer being truly open.
Also individuals tend to prioritize work that benefits employer interest but that doesn't mean they can do things arbitrarily. It just shifts energy and focus towards certain areas. It's not a problem unless the company employs a large fraction of Debian maintainers which Microsoft doesn't.
No, Debian has a mission of its own, and has always excluded candidates for Developership if they are opposed to Debian's mission. It has never been open in the way you are imagining.
I think employing the project lead of systemd gives Microsoft a kind of influence that employing the packager of libjpeg-turbo wouldn't. Lennart is notorious for doing things arbitrarily, and what we are discussing here is that the Debian package maintainer for systemd is also doing things arbitrarily, and is also employed by Microsoft.
how does that work when Microsoft also makes a competing operating system?
If we think about it in logical terms, they could sabotage Debian by having “interests” that are suboptimal for their core demographic.
this is a similar to how euro-skeptics are the people who make the very unpopular laws inside the European Union, leading to all the negative press about the European Union. But they have to be listened to as they are democratically elected and it is a democracy.
It's not so much that other companies support Linux. It is that they support industry standards and protocols. Apple is totally vertically integrated and they always cut corners on hardware implementation to save money. This means their hardware does not work how it should and requires custom work arounds and patches if you want to run a normal OS.
This is very different from PC hardware. It doesn't need to support linux. It just needs to not cut corners.
i mean, i did a bunch of the m3 support that m1n1 has, and i did it because it was fun. The reason you get blinking cursor and not linux is because hacking on the linux kernel is decidely less fun (I did a bunch of wifi work).
Oh, that's interesting. Linux kernel hacking is the area where I have the best chance of contributing something. If I can get my m3 max bootstrapped to a blinking cursor then I'd be very happy to participate in kernel work.
reply