People have reasonable concerns about the ethical, political, economic dimensions before we even get to the technical capabilities.
Even within the narrower question of the technical utility, I think there are a lot of factors which differentiate people's different experiences which are largely unacknowledged and lead to people talking past each other and failing to understand how others have such different experiences and opinions.
The sentiment that "users only care if it works" for example implies that all considerations beyond "does the feature work today" are developers self serving their aesthetics, but overlooks many other concerns which _do_ impact users at a later point.
I think that while y'all were appreciated members and definitely had a lot to offer, you also had a lot of annoying carve-outs and kept stalling needed measures to federalize and strengthen the EU more so we can be a proper superpower in our own right.
Maybe it's good you left for now, maybe we can finally get these things done. And once that's accomplished and enough of the gammon has died off, you can always rejoin :-)
Jumping in and most people in Germany wouldnt see UK as an American trojan hourse. I dont think anti American countries like France and Danemark have a problem with UK being in the EU per se.
I can see most people want that UK wouldnt just get special treatment any more.
It feels like the virtual actors are the primitive the author is reaching for. As an erstwhile Elixir hobbyist I've often found myself wishing for the simplicity of actors when solving problems in my day job. I tend to work in an AWS environment, but I believe over in Azure they have something like it. I think it was called Orleans when I read about it but I think it's got a more corporate name now.
This is somewhat off topic, but a question to Americans: Why do none of you seem to pronounce the "l" in soldering? Every US video seems to say "soddering"
Would you consider going to Jamaica and asking people "why do you pronounce man 'mon'?" respectful? Of course not. Well, I can see the case where someone is so ignorant that they don't know the basics of how language dialects work, but that doesn't make it less rude for the average person.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that question in Jamaica. You're needlessly (and somewhat bizarrely?) problematising a genuine interest in others.
What you're proposing appears to be some kind of conspiracy of silence where we all notice differences in speech but are forbidden to enquire about them, and I think that's utter hogwash.
> I can see the case where someone is so ignorant that they don't know the basics of how language dialects work
Having a degree in linguistics I would hazard a guess that I probably know more than the average person about how dialects work. I wholeheartedly endorse asking others about how they speak. People absolutely love talking about themselves and their culture, and good-natured interest in others engenders genuine human connection. (Not to mention better appreciation of the dialects themselves, which is a worthy goal unto itself!)
No need to get defensive - I wasn't talking about you personally, in fact you'd be the EXACT person that is the exception to this rule! But asking random people "why do you pronounce words this way" is bound to be (a) fruitless (do your non-linguist friends generally know the origin stories of every dialect difference between them and whatever the "standard" version of the language is?) and (b) possibly a microaggression/microinsult because it implies that their dialect is somehow "lesser" than the one you're comparing it to.
For example, if you have Indian colleagues, in India or in your country, would you ask them "why do you pronounce (insert word here) differently than we in (insert your home country here) do?"
It might come from a place of genuine cultural interest, but I wouldn't expect anyone to assume that.
So that's where I leave this discussion. I've made my point, people are free to choose to absorb it and think it over and incorporate it into their beliefs if they want. If not, not my loss.
I think there's points on either side here. It's certainly possible to ask in good faith, and it's certainly possible to ask in bad faith. But that goes for most questions, really.
I would gently discourage you from assuming bad faith, which is what you're doing when you flag the whole question as rude.
> possibly a microaggression/microinsult because it implies that their dialect is somehow "lesser" than the one you're comparing it to.
I think with these assumptions you're implicitly reinforcing the negative self-perception that many people who speak dialects have, whereby their dialects are something to be reduced beyond perceptibility, and if ever they are noticed, it is an embarrassing social failure.
Silence is not the way to elevate dialects. There is no way to deconstruct the negative baggage around dialects unless smart, self-confident people take pride in their dialects. "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is hardly the way to achieve this. :)
If someone is asked about their dialect, it is generally in good faith. I would not expect them to talk about L-vocalisation around back vowels, but it is a wonderful invitation for reminiscences about their hometown, an anecdote about how their mammy used to talk, etc. This is good. This allows the two parties to bond over some shared human experiences, but it importantly also humanises the dialect.
Assuming the question is an attack, on the other hand, is a highway to responding as though it were an attack, which is guaranteed to result in confrontation. This is bad. The only stereotypes this could possibly reinforce are negative ones.
Seems like a decent place to point out that there are good savings to be had on heat pump running costs with a smart controller designed for heat pumps which can learn the dynamics of your building then preheat when tariffs are low or outdoor conditions are favourable.
I work for homely energy which has such an offering, but fwiw I genuinely think it's a good product. It's been studied by Salford uni in their energy house lab, so if anyone's interested maybe dig into that for a more neutral verdict.
I suspect sycophancy has a lot to do with things . People with power attract those who want their favour and/or money who will align themselves to please the powerful rather than steer them to their best selves. Furthermore as the sycophants accumulate the genuine voices likely begin to sound out of place, like their _against_ the individual. Ironically paranoia gets deployed in the wrong direction to push out the true voices.
I worry this fate will become more common. Everyone can hit up an artificial sycophant at will who they've been told is super intelligent and yet claims their ideas are full of deep insight.
I built a very similar system into my own assistant type project. In all honesty though I've not used it enough to know how well it works out in practice.
Since Kagi small web was on HN a few days ago I've been visiting multiple times a day and spelunking around. I've added a number of interesting feeds to my RSS reader off the back of it already.
People have reasonable concerns about the ethical, political, economic dimensions before we even get to the technical capabilities.
Even within the narrower question of the technical utility, I think there are a lot of factors which differentiate people's different experiences which are largely unacknowledged and lead to people talking past each other and failing to understand how others have such different experiences and opinions.
The sentiment that "users only care if it works" for example implies that all considerations beyond "does the feature work today" are developers self serving their aesthetics, but overlooks many other concerns which _do_ impact users at a later point.
I wrote about just this division of experience and the polarisation which manifests on hacker news just last week as it happens https://www.julianhaeger.com/posts/Disparate-Results-with-AI...
reply