The name of the ship was Bayesian, surely there are many nerd jokes to be had about a ship named Bayesian that sunk in a freak accident - or was it? Time to update our priors...

It's a really big ship, I would have thought a person-sized hatch would take a good while to let on enough water to prevent it from righting.

I was going to pedantically suggest you should use attribution here... but upon a cursory search, it's hard to say exactly who said it first. Perhaps some quotes with, " -Unknown" ?

I didn't say that. If this is what NY wants then that is their business.

They jacked up the price and people's access to public roads decreased! Success!!!

AI ethics

Vibes and snake oil

Hmmmm

It used to be that a photographer could make a living taking a picture in a war zone, and sending it back to HQ for printing in the evening / mornings newspaper. Now, there is no more newspaper to pay the photographer. Worse, if he sells the picture to any random site on the internet, the whole rest of the internet copies that picture. Thus, he gets paid once ($200) for taking that picture, when he used to be able to sell the same picture to hundreds of different newspapers for $200 each.

The same thing happened to many other creative disciplines. It used to be we had a journalist that wanted to go write a story because it would sell newspapers that would get him paid. Now we don't have the journalist because we don't have the newspaper. AI can copy the story.

The Music industry no longer pays its creators. There are now Youtube videos that seem like a bot created them.

AI is coming for computer programmers.

The danger is that we don't really have a model to pay the people at the start of the food-chain, the original photographers, writers, etc. We have a model where we pay for the AI generated copies, but not the original creators. In a world is drowning in "information", we have a hard time finding valid new useful information.

We are looking at a societal shift to enshittification. A dumber world for more challenging times.

We disagree.

If I'm running an application on one desktop and explicitly select a different desktop to do something else, I want any new child windows from the first application that open when I've shifted to a different desktop to be created on the original desktop. After all, I explicitly directed a change in my attention to do something else while the first computation was churning on something. When I return to the first desktop, I want to have all of the windows from that application right there, rather than scattered across my N virtual desktops.

Years ago, things worked exactly as I described. Now, for whatever reason, there is no way to implement that behavior unless you hardwire specific applications to specific desktops which is unnecessarily restrictive.

The instances where I want a new window to open on a different desktop are exceedingly rare, and I'm happy to move them explicitly under those circumstances. Right now, I have to explicitly move windows all the time. It's just the wrong model for my use case, and, I argue, should at least be a selectable alternative default behavior.

As an argument against banning "FSD" as it currently exists - that is, with supervision - Tesla's stats do make sense. There is some argument that people cannot reasonably be expected to keep monitoring when they don't have to do much, so assistance requiring supervision actually reduces safety - Tesla's stats refute that.

But certainly, Tesla could not use stats from supervised driving to justify letting Teslas drive without supervision, i.e. the Robotaxi.

No, it doesn't do what I want, as far as I have been able to determine. I want the new child window to always appear on the desktop that its parent is on, no matter what desktop that might be. What I can find is that I can tell it to appear on a specific virtual desktop. That's not what I want.

The default now, to open new windows on the current desktop is almost never the right action, at least for me --- it should instead be what I described: open on the desktop of the parent window.

Moreover, child windows should default to open on top of all other windows (sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, and for the life of me I can't tell why). If the new window is not a dialog, it should *never* steal focus; if it is a dialog, it should *always* steal focus (and there should be ways to set overrides, like for Window Rules). As far as I can tell, those settings are not possible with KDE.

Oh, good, that makes it easier to turn all of them frelling off.

Now, don't get me wrong, I enjoy using KDE. It has been remarkably rock solid for my use cases. There are some settings that are always hard to find, but it mostly just works. Given that I can ignore some of the features that they try to push and have had better solutions for years (like Activities, which is better managed by having just a fixed number of desktops with simple keyboard shortcuts, which I've been doing for, literally, 30 years now, or KDE Wallet, or Dolphin, or ...) and still have things work just fine, that says a lot. The idea of building a useful set of tools an not forcing one particular path through them ... that idea resonates deeply for me.

The one aspect of KDE that drives me nuts, however, is that when a process opens a new window, the default should be to open that window on the desktop that the process has been assigned to rather than the current desktop (who, in their right mind, thinks that latter behavior is the right choice?). That, and there's no setting for focus that matches what I want, and the descriptions, despite multiple revisions, remain opaque.

"Most people believe AI will reduce transparency, accuracy, and trust in news."

If you're already getting your news primarily from social media, this is like worrying your shit sandwich might contain slightly more shit in the future.

do any of your three new members understand percentages?

That self-serving, overly simplistic view paints a monochromatic history. The truth is complicated. If you're suggesting that Japan attacked the U.S. with neither rhyme nor reason, you haven't actually looked into it.

Oops! I inverter the sign. It's a+b >> c+d, not the other way around.