"I recommend going to the Nestle chocolate house, a guided tour by LeGuide (click here for a free coupon) and the exclusive tour at the Louvre by BonGuide. (Note: this response may contain paid advertisements. Click here for more)"

"ChatGPT, my pc is acting up, I think it's a hardware problem, how can I troubleshoot and fix it?"

"Fixing electronics is to be done by professionals. Send your hardware today to ElectronicsUSA with free shipping and have your hardware fixed in up to 3 days. Click here for an exclusive discount. If the issue is urgent, otherwise Amazon offers an exclusive discount on PCs (click here for a free coupon). (Note: this response may contain paid advertisements. Click here for more)"

Please no. I'd rather self host, or we should start treating those things like utilities and regulate them if they go that way.

- I asked perplexity how to do something in terraform once. It hallucinated the entire thing and when I asked where it sourced it from it scolded me, saying that asking for a source is used as a diversionary tactic - as if it was trained on discussions on reddit's most controversial subs. So I told it...it just invented code on the spot, surely it got it from somewhere? Why so combative? Its response was "there is no source, this is just how I imagined it would work."

- Later I asked how to bypass a particular linter rule because I couldn't reasonably rewrite half of my stack to satisfy it in one PR. Perplexity assumed the role of a chronically online stack overflow contributor and refused to answer until I said "I don't care about the security, I just want to know if I can do it."

Not so much related to ads but the models are already designed to push back on requests they don't immediately like, and they already completely fabricate responses to try and satisfy the user.

God forbid you don't have the experience or intuition to tell when something is wrong when it's delivered with full-throated confidence.

F-droid repository format would be easy enough to support a commercial repository you could manually activate, with signing and all.

Google has huge numbers of engineers working on Android...

Although I do kinda wonder exactly what they're working on, considering each release of Android seems to be not very different from the previous one...

It really seems like the straightforward solution to me, even more than carbon credits which seem to have some issues (I believe you can get paid for 'not emitting' in some cases, which of course can lead to almost-fraudulent behavior) -- taxing emissions is much more concrete and verifiable.

Also deforestation and afforestation are shown incredibly powerful. It really seems to me one of the most important aspects, since it means we also get "for free" the security of our forests and habitats that are collapsing (and even expansion of wild habitats hopefully!).

https://scoop.sh/

The difference is that it (largely) stays confined within a directory without even needing elevated privileges and such for installs (which brings peace of mind for community installs). Repository is more centralized and automated too it seems.

Not perfect in a few edge cases, like other programs expecting a certain install location. Overall enormous time saver.

Trusted platforms are pretty interesting IMO in their ability to essentially provide FHE by means of tamper-resistance instead of mathematical security. Objections should be more directed at the control of keys being with Intel; maybe some other orgs should be in charge, maybe there could be a number of trust vendors you could choose, or at least veto (and allow external users of your external platform to choose). Something more in line with TLS authentication: we all need to trust 3rd parties to use the internet, and nobody protests -- with good reason. It's a well designed, open, decentralized system with good oversight.

Cognition and agency in the real world is often hierarchical in nature. You learn a task by breaking it down into simpler tasks, and if necessary breaking down the simpler tasks into yet simpler. This is due to nothing more than algorithmic efficiency (when at all possible -- it usually is IRL), divide and conquer.

The fundamentals are the basic tasks which higher level tasks rely on. Sometimes (quite common really) the nature of this (inverted) tree is such that the higher level tasks have a sort of soft max-min relationship: your overall skill will only be about as good as your weakest subskill. An example that comes to mind is manual driving. You could be the most brilliant, strategic, high-reflex rally race car drive in the world, if you miss most of your stick shifts you will likely be a mediocre driver, if even competitive. Shifting properly and quickly makes a significant difference. So much that it's almost completely futile to practice those higher skills unless you've nailed down the basics.

When you're just having 'fun', learning something intuitively, without the sharp focus on improving, it's easy to neglect those fundamentals. They are likely areas where you have some natural relative difficulty, which can lead to shying away from them (in larger contexts sometimes this is even wise -- you want to use what you're good at afterall!) -- it could be because they're uncomfortable, painful, repetitive, boring, too difficult (break it down!) and so on. Compensating for weaknesses exists I believe, but in high levels of competition it's something extremely subtle; again risking generalizations almost every high skill individual will have fundamentals mastered.

Most of my activity is academic, and I have some anecdotes in this regard. I feel like I've really evolved when (a) I've focused on learning the basics of my field really well (going down to the math foundations and axioms) (b) focused on improving weaknesses. It wasn't intuitive to me that this attention to fundamentals could yield so much.

edit: It should be noted (as others noted) that identifying what are the fundamentals can be something difficult itself. Common tools here are reviewing your games/production/etc, or asking others (teachers, peers, etc).

I support Nuclear Energy too, but I can see it has difficulty gaining traction for a huge list of reasons, and this is across the political, social and economic spectrum. But basically the need for Nuclear is largely obsolete -- it was the only attractive option when Solar (and Wind to an extent) wasn't so cheap. Solar costs about the same or less, is available more or less everywhere, and has no contamination issues.

Also of very worthy note IMO is that the (electrical) energy supply isn't the whole picture. A good chunk of emissions are from transportation sector and some from industrial processes. There is also advocacy in those sectors (which comes off as 'progressive') simply because of consistency and necessity to achieve a reasonable climate plan. Note that nuclear energy, or solar energy, can't solely avoid incoming disasters.

> I don't see why this needs to be politicized this heavily

One huge reason is that the coincident ideologies of the left can't be taken seriously by those on the right. Or, put another way, they don't believe them.

Specifically, if one was truly serious about the urgency of solving climate change, they would not simultaneously advocate for raising the standard of living of non-Western populations to Western levels, before the carbon footprint required of said standard of living was dramatically reduced first.

Carbon emission reduction right now, with the urgency required to prevent collapse, is fundamentally incompatible with open borders. So when someone on the right sees an open-borders advocate clamoring for immediate carbon emissions reductions, the conclusion is not necessarily that they don't believe the science, it's that they don't believe you do. And the only valid conclusion is that you're motivated by politics, not by legitimate concern for the species.