I’m responding to your point that it would be “unacceptable” for a regular government website to provide wrong information. The case I linked to says that the government isn’t responsible for mistakes in what the government tells you about the law. If someone in the social security office says the law is X, but it’s actually Y, then the citizen is still required to follow Y.
The case isn’t about whether it’s “illegal” for the government website to be wrong. It says you as the citizen are held responsible for the actual law, even if you followed incorrect government advice. So the current rule already acknowledges that advice provided by the government may be mistaken and says that’s no excuse.
So the question is is the chat bot better than people trying to understand complicated government websites by themselves?
I'm honestly very puzzled by all the positive comments I've seen about Golden Gate, it's strictly worse in my experience (i.e., I can't think of any old bugs that don't bother me anymore, but there are annoying new ones). For example, I can report the same menubar bug as the author: as I'm typing this very comment, my Firefox menubar has two menus permanently "selected" [0]. I use the Hiding option for the Dock, but ever since I upgraded the Dock randomly switches into an unhidden state (but it still thinks it's hidden, so I have to disable Hiding and then re-enable it to fix the behavior). I now have to semi-regularly `sudo killall coreaudiod` to fix the audio randomly cutting out on my AirPods (this would occasionally happen before, but it's gotten way more frequent). I'm left very unimpressed with whatever's going on at Apple.
I just checked and 27.0.1 is out, so here's hoping it fixes anything....
EDIT: Actually, one bug that I haven't noticed on Tahoe is the weird lack of vertical padding that some System Settings screens used to have. Credit where credit's due.
[Disclaimer: I believe that morality is objective (and that our consciences are generally reliable guides, albeit ones we can suppress or even change), so any strong statements I make below are implicitly coming from this perspective.]
I strongly disagree, I think this is instead true for those who have an image of themself as "good". IME, someone whose identity involves their "goodness" (and I certainly include myself here) will be willing to do a whole lot to maintain that perception (whether it's a self-perception or an external one). In particular, I think that someone already motivated to feel good about themselves is going to be easier to mislead by slick arguments. See the unfalsifiable longterm-ism of modern-day EA ("you can do an incalculably large amount of good with comparatively minimal effort"), much of today's political violence/radicalism, or the religious persecution all throughout history, whether against the religious (many of last century's authoritarians) or by the religious: cf. Jesus' warning about this in John 16:2 ("They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God."), or even just the Bible's very many warnings against pride (e.g. Proverbs 26:12 [0]) and self-righteousness (e.g. Romans 10:2-3 [1]).
(Of course, sometimes people have no way of knowing a priori that they're being misled. I'm exclusively talking about cases where, deep down, one could/should have known that the situation wasn't actually on the up-and-up... which I'd argue is much more common than we often like to think.)
On the other hand, I'd argue that someone who is truly doing what is good is, by definition, unable to be swayed from that (for then they wouldn't be doing good things anymore, no matter what words they want to use to describe themselves or others). Relatedly, I don't agree that someone can be a "good person" in the absence of actually doing good. (Naturally, this is an extraordinarily high bar, and I'd argue an impossible one to perfectly meet.)
I'm reminded of C.S. Lewis's famous quote:
> Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
[0] "You have seen a man wise in his own opinion—
there is more hope for a fool than for him."
[1] "For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For not knowing about the righteousness of God and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God." (emphasis mine)
I only just skimmed the referenced essay, but a priori I don’t think “problem-solving” as Gowers uses it has anything to do with real-world practicality. The problems under consideration are entirely theoretical, regardless of which “culture” a mathematician belongs to.
You're right, but I also may have quoted poorly to give the impression that the first post was only about real-world problems. It goes on to point those out as an infinite source of theoretical problems, which sounded to me like an emphasis on the problem-solving culture.
The reply to that seems to say there are theoretical problems not necessarily connected to real-world problems, which I interpreted as an emphasis on the conceptual understanding aspect.
I may have misinterpreted either or both of them though!
> If they don’t use the microphones why do they have a statement in their Terms of Service to not say sensitive things in front of your TV?
1. The introduction says that Smart TVs are not included in this ToS ("not including Smart TVs").
2. Where do the terms say anything about "sensitive" content? The closest thing I see is section 4.d, but that's just about wiretapping/privacy laws in general.
> But it, and the piano black keys with it, are definitely not optimal. It makes playing in C easy, and playing in anything else hard.
I don't think this is true—I was under the impression that, at least on piano, keys other than C major are sometimes chosen specifically to make things easier on the fingers.
Easier on the fingers - maybe (I don't know what you reference), but not easier on the mind: Instead of learning each chord once, you have to learn it 12 times (for each key).
reply