Some of them *use* robots.txt to find out what to scrape.

You can put tripwires in there and feed logs to fail2ban, for instance.

That's definitely the case with things like dinner etiquette. Nobody REALLY cares about which spoon is which.

But politeness, being kind in your interactions, thanking people, etc., that's all there to help interactions with people that aren't your friends or family. I say please and thank-you to the folks at the farmer's market. I don't know them well enough to do anything else. There's a little bit of social lubricant there that gives me a framework of how to act with someone that's mostly a stranger.

I get that sometimes the niceties are annoying—don't ask me how I'm doing if you don't actually care; I'll TELL you and then what are you going to do?—but lots of them are just a way to make life a little easier.

Women aren't any more or less logical than men, from my experience. They may sometimes have a different set of assumptions, but most of the outcomes from there are internally consistent.

I've had a LOT more trouble with men being illogical or saying "that's just how it is" or something similar. They're far less likely to change their minds in the face of overwhelming evidence.

It comes down to who you surround yourself with. If you find that the women in your life aren't very logical, it may say more about how you've decided to associate with. (If you claim that you haven't chosen these people and they were somehow thrust upon you, that's worse, and still your fault.)

Or possibly what it means is that the segment of people who want that capability is small. (I would have been part of that segment a decade ago, when my eyes were better. These days Txt message on the phone are too small to read.)

Your valid point is that it's no longer adaptive. But it *was*, and social customs tend to persist long after their utility. I'm sure you can think of a few currently being stressed in the US.

It's not moronic, but it only makes sense within a proper context. It's more of a society optimizing thing than a physical efficiency optimizing thing. It makes more sense when transportation and communication are slow, and laws aren't strongly enforced, so social customs depend strongly on trust.

That joke is a story based on a really early attempt at machine translation. There were several similar goofs. E.g. "out of sight, out of mind" into "unseen moron", "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" is the one you selected, but it was only one of several. Not a huge number. Computer time was expensive! I probably heard of around 30. And translating to and from different languages yielded different results. "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" into Russian and back yielded "The vodka is good, but the meat is rotten.".

My sister was left-handed. It's NOT a myth. She had to really contort her hand to avoid smearing the stuff she'd just written. And this was with ball-point pens, not fountain pens (which I preferred, because I could use various colors of ink).

I sort of agree with you, but the appropriate thing to do is to change the law, not to violate it in the name of "doing what's right". It's true that this would mean amending the constitution, and that's difficult, but they have the legal right to choose what they allow.

OTOH, it would be quite reasonable to deny that they are common carriers if they use editorial judgement as to what posts to allow. That would be an easier approach, and in line with what's been done in the past. I just feel that it's blatantly unconstitutional. (I think the Supreme Court disagrees with me, but that was the Warren court, perhaps the current one would agree...but probably not. That would limit the executive power.)

No, I haven't. The code that LLMs generate is suspicious at best. But that's the thing with so-called 'vibe coding': it's something that non-programmers do. They iterate using the prompts, not by taking the code generated by the LLM and fixing it up themselves.

Yes. So it should be legal for them to make that change. It should also inform everyone that YouTube is even less trustworthy than you previously thought. (Unfortunately, it probably won't.)

If you're 'vibe coding', you're not interacting with the code anyway.

There are lots of domains were physical evidence is either missing or impossible, yet where many people feel the need to have certainty.

Actually, the space is even larger than that. Every area of expertise implies an area that is not being examined, since people have only finite intelligence and finite time to explore. So...I "believe" in the EWG multi-world interpretation of quantum physics (with a few modifications). This is a belief, because I'm nowhere near expert enough in the field to have detailed knowledge. I *do* acknowledge that there are other interpretations that fit the existing data equally well, but I find them...distasteful.

Also, I believe that my wife was a wonderful woman. This is not based on globally accessible knowledge, partially because "wonderful" is not well-defined.

Etc.

You are wrong. AI has done mathematical proofs that were new. It *can* only be original by combining existing information into new patterns, but if the "rules of inference" are good, this can allow it to create something new and good.

OTOH, you are partially correct, in that it can't derive anything that wasn't already implicitly implied by the existing knowledge.,,because it can't currently run its own experiments.

N.B.: This is a comment about "AI" not about pure "LLM"s. Pure LLMs are a lot less reliable, because they've been designed to never admit that they are uncertain. And because they've been trained on the Internet.

What are the analogous problems in China?