I partially agree with Italy's decision, at least to the naming of food.
You didn't eat chicken nuggets made out of rice. You ate deep-fried rice balls trying to simulate the taste of chicken nuggets, and they might have tasted similar to chicken nuggets, but that is an incredibly low bar to set in terms of taste (mostly spices) and texture (terrible).
The nutrient profile wouldn't have had nearly the amount of protein, vitamins or other nutrients an actual chicken nugget would have had, either.
On the other hand, chicken nuggets made out of rice explains exactly what they were eating and what the food might have tasted like and how it might have been cooked. You didn't explain what's wrong with that beyond it sounding funny to you.
Quorn makes chik'n nuggets made of mycoprotein with similar nutrients to a chicken nugget, but with the added benefit of fiber and less saturated fat.
Including chicken nuggets in the name is useful for the exact purpose of helping the consumer scratch their itch for a food with something that approximates that food. Maybe they care about animal ethics, maybe they're allergic to chicken, maybe they want to reduce saturated fat despite eating something that tastes 95% like a chicken nugget.
Requiring them to label it "fried mushroom protein" doesn't help anyone and seems to be coming from an emotional/reactionary place rather than a place of helping consumers.
Half the protein, the nutrient profile is completely different (because it's mushroom and not chicken). No B12.
Where you getting your facts from man? It takes me actual time to refute your bullshit, the least you could do is provide evidence yourself.
Finally, Quorn is not rice is it, which is the original argument, so stop moving the goalposts and argue my original point if that's what you want to argue. If not, then you are contributing nothing of value and wasting everyone's time.
Lets not pretend that McDonald's chicken nuggets are some natural unprocessed thing that humans have been eating for centuries. If I want a chicken mcnugget, I'm expecting a frankenfood. And if I can get them without needing to subject actual chickens to the horrors usually involved in factory farming, then so much the better.
Ok, so how long have you had these? I was unaware they had released these but they look pretty fun AND the price point is surprisingly approachable.
Are you wearing these out in public pretty regularly? Are people noticing the lenses? My main concern with buying these is that I will end up not wearing them in public eventually, which kind of makes them not super useful. I worry about that because I can see some people seeing those lenses and going off on the whole bit about am I filming them? am I filming their kids? And we all now the rabbit hole of uncomfortable public social iteractions this can take one down. So, I worry I would run into too many of these people downtown or something and end up being anxious about even wearing them out anywhere.
What is your experience and how long have you been wearing them around in public (if you are)?
Also, legit question... how did you succesfully make an alt facebook account? lol Anytime I try with a different name so I can have an alt for buying stuff on marketplace it blocks that new account out because I can't verify it is me (because it's a fake name).
Historically, Islamic philosophers (as they were then called) took works from the greek philosophers before them and expanded upon it. Then a few other philosphers who did not like people learning from non-muslims leaned hard into fundamentalism and you now have the kind of Islam (Salafist/Wahhabism) that exists today, e.g. Saudi Arabia
The Mongols opened the door to fundamentalism, but it didn't have to go that way. The sack of Baghdad is a simplification
Yes. But we stopped studying the Greeks for a long time and had no paper. So we could not distribute copies of Greek works until paper was introduced here, and until we had those copies.
That trend, that lasted a long time, ended with the help of the Islamic civilization influence, with the arrival of paper and translated copies of the works you are talking about.
They were studying them. We were not. Our copies come from them, and the technology to distribute those copies also comes from them.
Our scientific tradition is a direct continuation of theirs, as they are the first advisors to the first doctors in the West.
"You don't agree with me so I'll throw my toys out of the pram"
Come off it, debate is debate, you're trying to come to a conclusion, but for that to happen your mind needs to be open to the possibility that you are wrong, can you do that? If not, then yes, debating is not worth the effort.
Yeah I would have thought so too, but I have personally ran into this issue running fish-shell on my mac. There are some scripts I need to run that do not work even when I shebang the script to run in bash.
Yes, it really is odd, I couldn't figure it out so switched back to zsh.
The specific issue was to do with a script we had to run to gain ssh access to an internal network. I can't post the script, but it was related to openssh.
Even logging into bash and running the script didn't work, I had to remove all fish binaries, symlinks, etc and set my shell to bash/zsh. Maybe it was an issue with how I installed fish, but yeah like I said, very strange, but I can vouch that I've encountered a similar issue before
It's a real shame because I think the fish syntax alone is worth the switch, for my personal machine(s) I use it.
Edit: this was years ago now, about 4 years, maybe the issue doesn't exist anymore but it caused me a bit of grief at the time (beacuse I didn't know it was related to using fish!), I've not since tried it again. I might try again and get back to this thread
Most likely a command in your script (or one source-d into it) makes an assumption about your $SHELL or login shell that is true for bash/zsh but not for fish.
See my other comment and let me know if that script contains
ssh-agent $SHELL ...
or
exec $SHELL ...
or
eval "$SHELL ..."
or similar. :)
If it ends up passing a script file or arguments to $SHELL and you wanna fix it without rewriting it, just add some conditionals where $SHELL is used and use the equivalent flags or syntax when $SHELL indicates fish.
Alternatively, if you just wanna work around it, just launch that script like
fish doesn't have builtins but all fish commands are external binaries or fish functions. i think at one point early in the history of fish those binaries may have been installed on the global path so they were accessible outside of fish and possibly there was a name conflict with one of them that this script triggered.
although such a name conflict should not have happened (and i can't think of which command such a script might have used that would also be a fish command), and the global path thing was also fixed soonish. but this is all a faint memory, so i am not sure i remember any of that right.
- cd
- source, .
- eval
- string
- and
- or
- builtin
- command
and many others.
Not sure what the point of distinguishing between fish builtins and fish functions is; whether a builtin is shipped as a function distributed with fish or a reserved word in the fish evaluator seems like an implementation detail.
fish has grown and evolved. i was referring to this:
Builtin commands should only be created when it cannot be avoided. echo, kill, printf and time are among the commands that fish does not implement internally since they can be provided as external commands. Several other commands that are commonly implemented as builtins and can not be implemented as external commands, including type, vared, pushd and popd are implemented as shellscript functions in fish.
if i remember correctly, this led to some useful commands that are builtin elsewhere to be external binaries shipped with fish. but since those where not actually tied to the fish shell they could run without it, and if they ended up on the global path be accessible from other shells.
the relevant text on the website has been changed, but it is referenced here:
If you wanna add a builtin like that to your own distribution of fish, you could do it cleanly by keeping those binaries in /usr/lib or /usr/libexec and then wrapping them in a fish function that ships in fish's install prefix. (This is basically how fish's Python scripts for generating completions from manpages are shipped today.)
This is plausible if you have scripts that do dumb shit like
eval "$SHELL ..."
because (at least sometimes?) $SHELL is set by your login program and not your shell, and dropping to an alternative shell by just typing
zsh
and hitting enter or whatever won't reset $SHELL.
You mention elsewhere that this had to do with a special OpenSSH setup, which also fits.
One of the things you can do with ssh-agent is use it to launch a child process with a dedicated SSH agent that (only) has certain keys on it, and which exits once its child exits. This is sometimes handy for deployment scripts or doing git checkouts or whatever because you can ensure you don't get locked out for too many auth attempts because the user just has too many extraneous keys on the agent associated with their normal user session.
If you were leveraging this feature for interactive shells, you might be tempted to use $SHELL to decide what executable to have ssh-agent launch, so that you could (for example) accommodate both bash and zsh users and let them launch a shell with a special SSH agent but which honors their usual preferences by loading their usual shell and reading their usual zshenv or bashrc or whatever it is.
You mention as well that you had to actually uninstall fish to get things to work again, and also that you were on macOS. I can't be certain about the cause here, but one obvious thing occurs to me:
macOS doesn't handle environment setup like any 'normal' (Linux or *BSD) Unix. On normal Unices, your login shell actually also launches your graphical user session, so to configure a session-wide environment variable, you just set it in your shell startup somewhere. On macOS, login shells are actually only used in SSH sessions and terminal emulators. If you want to set environment variables for apps that are not launched from terminal emulators, you have to use hacks (like Doom Emacs' env file, for example) or configure them for the whole user session via a LaunchAgent.
In the case of $SHELL, that environment variable is used by editors to determine what shell to use when you run external commands. Without it, if you are a fish user and you launch MacVim or Emacs (or, presumably, VSCode or anything else) from your dock, when you go to launch external commands, they will run not in fish but some other shell (probably zsh or bash). If your install method for fish tried to handle this for you (pkgsrc and Nix don't, but the .pkg from the developers or Homebrew might, idk), or if you dropped to bash only from terminal emulator windows that were already running fish instead of opening a new session for bash, you may have wound up in a bash session where $SHELL was still set to fish. That's the only reason I can think of for why you might have had to actually uninstall fish to get this ill-behaved script to work right.
Anyway:
1. As a user, pay attention to what $SHELL is.
2. As a script author, never use `eval "$SHELL ..." or equivalent`.
> macOS doesn't handle environment setup like any 'normal' (Linux or *BSD) Unix. On normal Unices, your login shell actually also launches your graphical user session, so to configure a session-wide environment variable, you just set it in your shell startup somewhere.
That's no longer true for Linux, at least. GDM launches stuff via systemd user sessions, which do not source your profile.
I'm not sure how I feel about it. The old way feels 'simple' to me, but the new way does mean that shell misconfiguration won't hose your GUI sessions.
Let's be real, there is no reason for any country to be granting Albanian citizens asylum. There isn't a genocide going on, it's a (relatively) free country:
This is my experience with any linux distro I've used, I'd prefer a smaller, regularly updated repository instead of my (2023) distro being shipped with ancient versions of, e.g. node, python, openssl, etc...
I honestly find the "holier-than-thou" speech of anyone offensive, but when it's coming from a program I genuinely find it rage-inducing. I can't be the only one, facebook devs, what you guys playing at? You guys speak to each other like this in work? I doubt it!
Even better: the reinforcement learning required to make it refuse to follow your instructions and lecture you instead lowers its overall performance.
Defective by Detailing.
As far as what they're thinking-- they do put out an uncensored base model. The censored models protect them from being smeared in the press by lazy journalists that give the LLM rude instructions and then write "shocked" stories about computer doing what they told it to do.
Yes it's awful. I guess we've had areshole programs that say "I could do that ... but I won't!" for a while (e.g. some PDFs try to stop you printing them, some websites try to stop right click)... But this is the first time that the program can be condescending about it too.
It is offensive if you take the output personally. You are interacting with the model, but the model isn't interacting with you. The model doesn't know who you are. It could be the bad actors currently confined to the spam folder of your email making these requests, and the model wouldn't know the difference.
These responses are hard-coded by developers, we know this because it's the same stock response every time. It is personal because it's not the model, it's a wrapper around the model enforcing US-centric cultural censorship norms onto the rest of the world.
I understand the optics around why FB/OpenAI/etc do this, (as a sibling user posted), but make no mistake, it is no accident that it talks to you in a condescending way.
For example, why can't the response just be "I am not allowed to answer that request"? Why does it have to give you this condescending spiel about "offensiveness" or some other subjective reason?
> Why does it have to give you this condescending spiel about "offensiveness" or some other subjective reason?
The response quoted above makes no mention of offensiveness, and I explained the need to decline certain requests above.
I understand your sentiment, and I would agree if it was the stock response we are used to from ChatGPT. Unlike the condescending stock response from ChatGPT, however, the response in question is to the point, honest, and provides useful feedback.
Do other people not see how ridiculous this is?
I partially agree with Italy's decision, at least to the naming of food.
You didn't eat chicken nuggets made out of rice. You ate deep-fried rice balls trying to simulate the taste of chicken nuggets, and they might have tasted similar to chicken nuggets, but that is an incredibly low bar to set in terms of taste (mostly spices) and texture (terrible).
The nutrient profile wouldn't have had nearly the amount of protein, vitamins or other nutrients an actual chicken nugget would have had, either.