EnergyAmy

5 ms·

1.
by EnergyAmy 2mo ago
Did you manually set those utm_source parameters?
2.
by EnergyAmy 2mo ago
The idea that grammar is all it takes to process natural language is absolute beans.
3.
by EnergyAmy 3mo ago
If you're doing that as part of a business, yes. If you're doing it personally, no.
4.
by EnergyAmy 3mo ago
This is as ethical as it gets. They're getting compensated by being able to use the result of their work freely . This is the rising tide that lifts all boats.
5.
by EnergyAmy 3mo ago
That's not at all specific. What individual files and directories?
6.
by EnergyAmy 3mo ago
No, it's more healthy to start the conversation on why we allow corporations to do bad things with excuses like "just serving customer's needs"
7.
by EnergyAmy 4mo ago
People are humans. Natural people are people, and therefore humans. Humans have rights because we all want to live in a society where it's not OK to murder people without consequences. Corporations are pieces of paper we've scribb
8.
by EnergyAmy 4mo ago
You're trying to make sense of a broken worldview. Hopefully the absurdity is becoming clear. No, it's just a piece of paper. Yes, rights/laws/norms/etc are legal fiction. Harm is material. Without harm, there'
9.
by EnergyAmy 4mo ago
Which is why elsewhere I make the argument that we should strongly reject the terminology of "people" in any relation to corporations. It leads people down bad mental thought processes by sneaking in priors. Corporations are not &
10.
by EnergyAmy 4mo ago
I'm also focused on the broader principle, not just specifically any one structure such as LLCs. I have the legal right as a person to write on a piece of paper "i am a person". That piece of paper does not inherit any rights
11.
by EnergyAmy 4mo ago
It's a dangerous game to anthropomorphize legal fictions by using terms like attributing "will" to them. Likewise by sneaking in priors with the term "people". It's best to stick to calling them legal fiction.
12.
by EnergyAmy 4mo ago
You're confusing them again, which is why sneaking in priors with the term "people" is bad. "granted to them by the people" means "We The People", society, etc, not the people in control of the legal ficti
13.
by EnergyAmy 4mo ago
Corporations don't have the right of representation, because corporations don't have rights. People have rights, and corporations are not people.
14.
by EnergyAmy 4mo ago
They're not, and the terminology shouldn't be confused. "Juridical people" tries to sneak in priors about what "people" means. People, of course, have rights. Corporations are not people, including "juridi
15.
by EnergyAmy 4mo ago
Because corporations aren't people. Full stop.
16.
by EnergyAmy 4mo ago
They can vote and act in their capacity as people. They can fuck off otherwise.
17.
by EnergyAmy 4mo ago
The contradiction clears up when you realize that corporations are legal fiction without rights, merely privileges granted to them. You can act in your capacity as a person and exercise your rights, taking on personal liability. You can act
18.
by EnergyAmy 4mo ago
This is an impressively awful take, congratulations. Corporations aren't people and don't have rights or votes. If you want to have a say in the way a place is run, you can do so in your capacity as a person. If you want to do so
19.
by EnergyAmy 4mo ago
If you want a say, live there.
20.
by EnergyAmy 4mo ago
The article doesn't say exactly what information. Is it something that technically maybe could possibly be considered under NDA? Or something more substantial? France said: > “Each country is free to regulate their borders,” Mr. Bap
21.
by EnergyAmy 4mo ago
That group can have the legal fiction of the corporation for liability reasons. They can also, separately, assemble as a group for political speech, each using their own rights as a person. That corporation is not a person and has no righ
22.
by EnergyAmy 4mo ago
They can do so without the protections of a corporation. You can take actions qua you as a person, and assume the liability for those actions. Or you can shield yourself behind a legal fiction, but that is not a person. It has no rights,
23.
by EnergyAmy 4mo ago
If that's one of the better criticisms of the book, that's a pretty good recommendation for the book. The article author clearly just doesn't like their dream being shattered.
24.
by EnergyAmy 5mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Miracle > This embrace of phonics education and the near-complete rejection of whole language theory was a key component of the program's success.
25.
by EnergyAmy 6mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purge
26.
by EnergyAmy 7mo ago
Treating Catholics as "what Christians believe" is just as wrong. Pretribulational premillennialism is a popular position in mainstream Christianity in the US, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Behind_(n
27.
by EnergyAmy 7mo ago
Christians are ok with that, because they think they'll have been raptured already.
28.
by EnergyAmy 7mo ago
Iced is promising, using it for a small side project. Fairly straightforward and easy to use, but lacking basic things from more mature libraries (unsurprisingly, since it's still early). If you want something like a QTreeView for exam
29.
by EnergyAmy 7mo ago
How do we know they don't feel true pain? Can you define it well enough? Perhaps humans are the ones just "simulating" pain. We've proven that they can have substance, we imbue it with a process called RLHF.
30.
by EnergyAmy 7mo ago
Airplanes and bees are both structured entirely differently and yet they still both fly. Just because LLMs don't work the same way the human brain does, doesn't mean they don't think.

More ›