I think that's not obvious at all, and quite a personal preference. There's lots of assholes in the area with extremely loud cars who seem to think that way. I have never thought the sound of a engine is cool, pleasant, exciting, impressive, or anything remotely like that. I do like adrenaline and driving fast in almost every form of vehicle, but if I could have a silent maglev sportbike that drove just like a combustion based bike I would choose it in a heartbeat.
My car people are the absolute opposite of you. Almost all of us want noise but it doesn’t have to be obnoxious. Most high end car with high end engines have switches that will control the exhaust valve.
Schermer JA. A desire for a loud car with a modified muffler is predicted by being a man and higher scores on psychopathy and sadism. Curr Issues Personal Psychol. 2023 Apr 14;11(4):339-343. doi: https://doi.org/10.5114/CIPP/162006 PMID: 38075464; PMCID: PMC10699294.
> Researchers noted that modifying a vehicle to make an illegal, disruptive noise at a distance demonstrates the callous disregard for other people's feelings that defines psychopathy.
> Because the sudden noise startles and scares pedestrians or animals, the drivers frequently score high on everyday sadism, meaning they derive personal joy from minorly distressing or startling others.
> Contrary to my hypothesis, narcissism was not a significant predictor when the other personality dimensions were included. This finding suggests that people may not, in fact, be making their vehicles louder to draw attention to themselves or to say, “Look at me!”
> The results are concerning in that they suggest that individuals who make their vehicles loud may be doing so to deliberately hurt others by disturbing them and that these individuals may be motivated by the negative state that they cause others. Although the study is a pilot study and requires replication, the results are perhaps especially concerning because some media outlets are reporting that the frequency of vehicles with loud exhaust systems has been increasing.
That's a false dichotomy. If you launder rambling pointless prose through the llm you don't trade the personality of the writing for a well reasoned argument with clear points, you just lost the personality and gained shitty writing. LLMs aren't magic and can't make your point for you if you don't have one to begin with in the prompt. Garbage in garbage out.
I disagree. An editor can definitely make a piece of writing clearer without further input from the author. I often use an LLM to do that.
Of course, I didn't mean to imply that there's a dichotomy between personality and clarity. There's a dichotomy between ordinary LLM writing and personality.
I have seen it expressed here a few times, but these LLM blog post tech proposal things really give off the vibe (pun intended) of someone being gaslit by claude into thinking they are onto something really important or innovative. It feels really weird reading it. A bit like reading someone's somewhat self aggrandizing journal entries, or walking in on someone... Doin' stuff. I don't hate LLMs, they have made some aspects of my job easier for sure, but I think some people are still pretty off base on where and how it's acceptable to offload to an LLM.
I want to clarify that no, Starlink _really_ does not "drastically reduce the risk" of remote outdoor activities. Looking it up, Starlink doesn't even provide it's gps location to connected devices. And regardless, actually rugged communication capable handheld gps units already exist and have for a while. And they don't require that you bring a whole satellite dish and some kind of battery pack with you on your wilderness expeditions. What's actually idiotic, and getting lots of people in serious trouble these days, is going out unprepared. Don't risk your life, or search and rescue workers lives because you think you'll use Claude or whatever to figure it out while you are out there.
Things can go very wrong very quickly. If you go do risky activities far from help you should be prepared and know what you are getting yourself into and how to get yourself back out of it ahead of time.
Could you actually explain what you disagree with? In my opinion, everything in the comment you're replying to is obviously correct.
If you're going somewhere where there is a chance you might get lost, injured or trapped by weather, and need rescue, you should already be bringing something like a Garmin inReach. That's a highly ruggedized device with a battery that lasts for over a week without recharge, is small enough to keep in a pocket, provides two-way messaging and weather reports, can track your position at regular intervals so your family can see where you are, and can, without any setup and even when you're seriously injured, be used to directly send out an SOS with automatic reporting of your position and two-way voice communication.
As excellent as Starlink is, it is nowhere near a substitute for those capabilities. And the inReach has existed for longer than Starlink, ergo Starlink doesn't change the risk profile. The only real argument that Starlink changes the risk profile is if you're comparing Starlink vs nothing, or Starlink + PLB vs just PLB. And sure, in those cases Starlink is a significant improvement, but it's still inferior to something like an inReach.
The second part of the argument is that having better connectivity is no substitute for fundamentals, which is overwhelmingly, obviously correct. Yes, bring all the connectivity you want, the more the better if you're willing to carry it. But your plan shouldn't be built around the assumption that you can be rescued if things go wrong. If you get complacent due to having better connectivity it's entirely possible for it to worsen, rather than improve, your risk profile.
Right now I am in an overlanding vehicle, but I'm not an expert in offroading. I drove down a 5 mile trail that was very technical. The car can handle it, but it needs caution and the way back is much harder. I was extremely hesitant about going back up that way. If I get stuck, I am solo and I am hours from town via driving. So I just pulled out starlink, and with a combination of claude, off roading websites, and google maps, found an easier, roundabout, and more off the grid way back.
At every step I can use available information to put myself onto safer routes, I can research every decision before I make it. Where is the safest place to sleep, etc.
Pre internet people are out there just winging it in the back country
The track you chose has always had the same risk, you did it anyway even with all that technology beforehand. Congrats, you are the example I’m referring to.
They said exercise doesn't help them with reducing the feeling of hunger. I don't know why they thought it would, because generally if you do a lot of exercise you get more hungry not less hungry, but regardless, you are responding to something that wasn't said.
My meaning was more that indulging in that hunger would result in me just eating an exorbitant number of calories, way past anything it would be reasonable to burn off without spending 4 hours a day every day in the gym... but you're completely right that even if I did spend that time in the gym it wouldn't help with the calories-in-calories-out equation, because it would just make me more hungry.
If there is a large group of people who use a term like "anti-fascist" as a tag line it no longer is a literal representation of the words. Just like how you wouldn't say that a guy rolling coal in a lifted pickup with a confederate flag and an AR mounted in the window who calls himself a "freedom fighter" is literally fighting for freedom.
Otherwise you will just be talking past people who are interpreting it to mean something else. Which of course you are free to do if you don't think what you are trying to say has enough value to be worth avoiding the miscommunication.
I've proposed this a few times, as someone whose second language is English, I can see people learning English with AI, same with teens in school. I used spellcheck in Firefox (back in the mid 2000s) to teach myself how to spell more words instead of just relying on it and forgetting about the corrections.
We are and will reach a point where more and more people speak like, and sound like AI talks. The assumptions that something is AI are going to become really useless without further evidence.
You seem to be arguing under the presupposition that there are two equal entities, industry lobbies and everyone else, and somehow that division of viewpoints gets equal consideration from the governing body.
The other person is arguing that those two entities are not equal and should not have equal weight in affecting the decisions of the European commission.
Calling them malicious for having a different view of the _purpose_ of the commission is kind of wrong (it's independent of being malicious), and from the outside just makes you look dishonest.
> If the opposition simply seeks to silence you, rather than to argue against you, how are they not malicious?
in response to:
> The industry should only be allowed to comment after the laws have been written and fulfill the goals of European citizens.
Where it's clear from your framing of an "opposition trying to silence you" that you think the industry lobby has at least some right to be heard before the council votes on policy. Which is something the statement you are replying to clearly doesn't agree with. And rather than accept that there is a disagreement of the purpose of the council or the acceptability of industry lobbyists influencing law or what not, you just frame it as a moral evil (maliciousness) on the part of the other commenter. A good faith reading of the comment you replied to has so many non-malicious interpretations.
Side note: if your comment implies something hard enough (intentionally or not) that multiple people are "windmill-tilting" against something that you think you aren't saying, it deserves some reflection on whether you may have miscommunicated your point.
> Where it's clear from your framing of an "opposition trying to silence you" that you think the industry lobby has at least some right to be heard before the council votes on policy
This is an inherent feature of democracy. "The industry" consists entirely of people, of course you can't exclude them.
>A good faith reading of the comment you replied to has so many non-malicious interpretations.
"Let's not allow rich people to participate in the political process" has just as many possible non-malicious interpretations as "Let's not allow black people to participate in the political process". i.e. none
And even above I'm steelmanning by assuming that Frieren didn't want to also exclude indie developers.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble but I don't think your feature request had anything to do with when apple implemented call allow listing. It's been a thing forever and they were surly aware of it since the iPhone first came out
> Everyone in the world knows teams like Real Madrid or Barcelona
I promise you that if you go canvas a random selection of North Americans you would be astonished at how many do not recognize "Barcelona" as anything but a city. Football is really not very popular there. Though in recent years it is slowly becoming a bit more watched.
I can assure you that Mexicans (where football is the main sport and has been for years) would, Hondurans, Panamanians, and many others. If you simply mean the USA and Canada say so. Football is the most watched sport comfortably, with the odd anomaly like the US.
If I'm refuting that everyone in the world knows x, by showing a large population that doesn't know x. Saying that there is some other population that does know x makes no difference.
GP: all trucks are red.
Me: no, here's some trucks that are blue.
You: but look how many red trucks I see over there.
reply