If your attitude is that if one person litters it's now ok for anyone else to dump on protected categories, it's your clubhouse and you can set the rules.

That's your right, and it's also my right to say that I don't want to be associated with this forum even indirectly.

Could you provide me with a good email address to send my CCPA request to delete all my data and comments and account? I sent emails to a few YC addresses with:

"I am writing to request that you delete my personal data from all of your paper and/or computer records pursuant to Section 1798.105 of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)

To the extent that you rely on consent to process my personal data, I withdraw that consent. To the extent that you rely on your 'legitimate interest' to process my personal data, I object to the processing as there are no overriding legitimate grounds.

If you are selling my personal data to third parties, please consider this email as my direction to you not to sell my personal data to third parties.

Please don’t ask me to perform a self-service process such as locating my information on your website, filling out a form, or providing a mobile advertising ID. These requests place an undue burden on my side.

If you are not able to comply with my request to delete all of my personal data, please advise as to the specific reason for which this request cannot be acted on. Please advise which sections and subsections of the law you are relying upon, and identify the specific reason for which you are relying on those exceptions, such as which legal obligation, or internal purpose or use. Please delete all my personal data which does not fall under these exceptions."

I have not received a response.

I can write again in 46 days with a complaint attached mentioning you personally and a letter from my state representative indicating they'd like to know more as well. Or you can resolve this quickly in a mutually amicable way by just deleting my account and all my comments.

The US healthcare system is not a market system nor did it occur naturally. Do you have any conflicts of interest that could cause you to have an emotional need to misunderstand basic information about it?

You would describe that as "relentless, harassing, and tangental?" rather than say "I can see how that would be a relevant question, I'm not sure."

I hope your mental health improves in the future, it's unfortunately not possible to assume good faith on your part when you jump to thought terminating cliches.

Their vision is a world where they use all the automation regardless of safety or law, and we have to jump through extra hoops and engage in manual processes with AI that literally doesn't have the tool access to do what we need and will not contact a human.

> MCP is just a way to write this in a structured way,

Nope! You are not understanding or are actively ignoring the difference which has been explained by 20+ comments just here. It's not a controversial claim, it's a mutually agreed upon matter of fact by the relevant community of users.

The claim you're making right now is believed to be false, and if you know something everyone else doesn't, then you should create an example repo that shows the playwright CLI and playwright MCP add the same number of tokens to context and that both are equally configurable in this respect.

If you can get that right where so many others have failed, that would be a a really big contribution. And if you can't, then you'll understand something first-hand that you weren't able to get while you were thinking about theoretically.

You might believe there is intrinsic sexual dimorphism among mammals and birds. You might even have overwhelming experimental and scientific evidence that proves it. But ask yourself: is it worth losing your job over?

Some roosters lay eggs.

I think that when you informally bolster lies of omission with your own imprecise language agreeing with it, that harms the quality of discussion and creates pointless confusion. I think you get less benefit of the doubt if you do that routinely. By your own admission you do that routinely since you use this as a place to speak informally in a casual web discussion where you are often imprecise or lie by omission.

Or is there some nuance and you feel, in order to remain consistent, that it would be permissible in principle for China to bomb Taiwan and execute their head of state so long as they kept it to an air war and relied on their local agents on the ground?

Are you saying you would've been neutral on an invasion of Taiwan before 1985 or so, since it wasn't a democracy?

Sensationalizing claims then qualifying them later is inherently dishonest.

Your wife feels a certain way and wanted to avoid a certain hypothetical. But since it didn't happen, we have no way of knowing how relevant these feelings are.

How can we address blacklisting and covid response if you are insisting that any comparison isn't relevant and that we should evaluate it with no baseline?

You've run into a site you view on chrome/firefox/safari accessing your camera without granting access a few times now?

Can you give us an example of a site that does this so we can reproduce? Or could you retract your statement and clarify that you did grant camera permissions for that site previously?

Otherwise, you're saying very casually there's a huge bug and security issue that no one else has detected but you personally have seem multiple times.

I've run into people on the internet misremembering things or not understanding how the browser works more times than I've run into browsers allowing access to system devices like the camera without a permission prompt.

"Suggests is more ambiguous" and "undermines the framing" are bare assertions you want to be true based entirely on your mental model that has several shaky unsupported axioms.

I would guess that anyone who describes that problem as "underspecified" has some kind of serious brain injury or is below A2 english proficiency and should be excluded from the dataset, but I would not assert that definitively as self-evident.

At heart, the corpus for this going to be an aggregation of commentary from people in the undisputed most obese era in all of human history performatively denouncing and mocking an imagined other for using cars to go short distances and advocating for walking.

So you've got all "50 meters away? Of course you should walk!" vs a much, much smaller sliver of content about trick questions.

There is no reasoning here, there has never been any reasoning, there has been reasonable or less reasonable weighting for existing reasoning people already did that became part of training data.

If you take away the input corpus, you also take away the illusion of reasoning.

Whereas with other things that can reason like corvids, or ants or octopodes or slime molds, they can derive novel solutions and do a bit of math without any answer key. Mathematics is pure reasoning without any interference and AI can't do it at all unless you provide it with a corpus of already accurate formulas.

> People kept saying humans would fail this too, so I got a human baseline through Rapidata (10k people, same forced choice): 71.5% said drive. Most models perform below that.

This really is a grasping at straws ad hoc rationalization for the outcome that is never going to die, and you can see the top comments are efforts to salvage it or cast doubt on the outcome.

If you work for or own a lot of stock in an AI company, I understand you can't understand what you're being paid not to understand. But if you're anyone else...

https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/18079

The instance owner has absolute anonymity and absolute power to snoop with no access logs and no known identity. CCPA? GDPR? Access controls? Good luck! You can leave the instance, but you're leaving all your data behind for them or any future owner of the instance to do whatever they want with... forever.

And even if you trust them and everyone they will ever meet, people can and do store their server logs unencrypted.

Then argue they can't help it and you don't "get it" because that's just how the architecture has to work in order to... well it's not clear why this is a good design for the user or any better than other social media.

1) You still don't own your data 2) You still don't have any privacy 3) Every single part of the user experience is inferior or confusing and the people making it don't care because they're focused on doing what they can to connect kids with anonymous instance owners.