This right here is the reason why governments won't use it. Governments want transactions to be traceable so that they can audit your taxes. I don't have any issues with that, I actually don't mind paying taxes, but I would never expect a government, no matter how progressive, to use a privacy-based protocol or solution.

It is incredibly powerful for getting things started, but as soon as you have a sketch of a complex system going it loses its grasp on the full picture and do not account for the states outside the small asks you make. This is even more evident when you need to correct it about something or request a change after a large prompt. It just throws all the other stuff out the window and hyperfocus only on that one piece of code that needs changing.

This has been the case since GPT 3, the even their most recent model (forgot the name, the reasoning one) has this issue.

They do.

Twitter serves their service to the entire world, with multiple layers of systems working in conjunction in order to make things work smoothly. A new engineer that has not been working on it for no more than a couple months would likely be unaware of how the different systems communicate and interact. A change like this will have have a lot of unintended consequences, and not having a senior engineer with lots of context leading the change will undoubtedly cause these kinds of issues.

Then how can you say the criticism seems substantive? He brings nothing to the table to show that his criticism is valid, it's basically "I don't like, therefore wrong". The proper way criticize their paper would be conduct your own experiments using their parameters and methodologies and show that the results you obtain do not match theoretical results or results of other observations through other means.

>On that point, scientists don’t need you to chastise people for questioning their authority online. I think a lot of them would be offended at the idea that you think that is what they want.

We question their authority on this specific subject they seem to be criticizing. If you make a claim without having at least the background to support said claim, what value does it have? It's the same as a person without background in microbiology or virology claiming vaccines don't work when they don't even begin to understand the science behind it and the mountain of evidence that says otherwise.

I believe that depending on the situation and the individual or individuals allegedly responsible for these defamations, their identity might be very relevant. In the UK case, it seems it was someone noteworthy and rich enough that settling the case while paying 6 figures in damage was cheaper than the PR nightmare that would come with his identity being revealed.

Also, keep in mind that we live during times where cancel culture is raging very strong on social media, and people that make this claims can very easily lose their careers over stupid things they say online. I would say it is quite likely that the individuals themselves asked for anonymity in cases, and the attacked parties granted this so long as they don't repeat their behavior.

This kind of line of thought is the issue. Why should it be unfair? Or at least, why can't we make it fairer?

>People from both cultures do not mix well unless they are willing to adapt.

Those willing to adapt are usually those that are immigrating. Your argument does not make sense in this context, as we are talking about people that are, by definition, willing to move and be part of another country. Will there be a clash of cultures in some instances? Of course, but that will last at most for one generation.

> I refuse to take responsibility for everyone. It is not up to me to give a better wage to an ungrateful immigrant. Life is unfair, get over it.

No one is asking you to take responsibility for anyone. But why should you support policies that exclude those that are willing to come on their own volition and contribute to society? What makes you think that they are 'ungrateful'? Again, why should we not strive to make things fairer for everyone?

>Also, I am grateful that those that would have not adapted to the Canadian mosaic of cultures were not allowed to come. I think another term is culture fit. If you do not fit the culture, you should not be allowed in.

Culture is such a meaningless thing. Immigrants assimilate to the culture, willing or not, after a generation. Sure, some of the people that actually immigrate might not be want to change their ways, but their children will. Studies have shown that this is a moot point, used by those that are just scared of different things, when in reality those that immigrate do assimilate the culture of the place they are living.

This mentality makes absolute no sense, specially coming from a child of immigrants. And I see you come from Canada. As someone who is about to immigrate there, it saddens me to see such display of hatred for those who are different. I spent a year studying in Canada a few years ago, and from my experience people there are very welcoming to immigrants. I had the pleasure to meet Chinese, Muslims, Indians and people from lots of different places and cultures while in Toronto, and guess what? Everyone got along very well. I don't understand where this fear and hatred comes from, but most people are good people, willing to work hard to earn their own if given the chance.

And if this is naive idealism, well, then I am a naive idealist.

This is a really hard problem to solve, and would require those in power to help enlighten the people of this problem. At the same time, those in power are the one that benefit the most of the current trend of less and less privacy, so we can't really rely on them for educating people on this.

You say that is solely fault of the individual, but then say that it "suggests that communities are generally more violent and therefore more likely to be policed". So, if it is the fault of each black individual, as you claim is the underpinning of society, why are black communities being more policed?

>This fact along with others (like the behaviours of majority black police departments) can be used to construct in good faith a strong argument that there is no epidemic of police racism.

Being this the case, wherein lies the issue: the black community or the police institution that trains its members to be more aggressive and fearful of black communities? Keep in mind that only one of the two is in fact an institution funded by the public that undergoes training.

The biggest issue with these kinds of arguments is that it does not take in consideration that black communities are marginalized and target of harassment. This is institutionalized in the sense that the training the harassing people receive teaches them to harass and keeps telling them that they will get killed otherwise. This is not present only in the police, but in other facets of society as well. Look at how many videos of black americans being followed by security in malls and store there are on social media. This shows a pattern that keeps happening, and in unfortunately in many situations escalate to injury or death.

In Brazilian Portuguese, we use masculine pronouns for cars ("o carro"). Same goes for boat ("o barco") and plane ("o avião"). This can also be seen in Spanish ("el coche", "el barco", "el avión").

I believe that the gender these things are referred to in languages with gendered nouns is more linked to the etymology and development of linguistics than psychology, although it is very likely that the later has some influence as well.