I can, but I doubt you're going to like it. I invite you to reflect on it before you reject it outright, and maybe ask your favorite LLM or search engine for more information on this train of thought. Thanks.
Because of systemic racism, treating you and me "equally" as you ask for would continue the discrimination. In order to undo the discrimination, we're asked to take a step back and be truthful to ourselves and others about our existing privileges and about all the systemic racism we're benefitting from. We don't have to agree with every single action of those trying to change it, and it's certainly not our "fault", but unless you have better ideas on how to fix the issues and repair some of the damages, and put those ideas into practice, we can at least show some respect and dignity in the face of centuries of very violent suppression of minorities and natives. Because not doing that would make us 'supremacists' indeed. We have the privilege that we don't have to experience outright racism day by day by day, generation over generation over generation; we're asked to at least educate ourselves about it, instead of crying out for not being treated 'equally' here and there. Some humbleness.
It's not meant to offend you as an individual. It's not your fault. But what we can do is (trying to at least a bit) understand where all the rage and despair is coming from, bottled up for so many generations, and that while we're "innocent", we're still "targets", and rightfully so -- our ancestors profitted and so did we, by association. I agree that it can hurt to experience it in little things, but I am mindful that it is part of my tiny contributions to accept it, and I understand that if I express my frustration it will cause pain in those that don't have my privileges, and will not in their lifetimes. I do not want to be treated equally. I really have sufficient privileges that it's fine to take a step back in some situations. I don't have to take it personally.
There's plenty of good literature about these dynamics. If you're interested, I can recommend some. We can at least try to listen and understand what is being asked of us.
No race is a homogenous group equally benefiting and suffering from historical and societal privilege and disadvantage.
A large proportion of the majority ethnicity in the U.S live in and suffer from generational poverty. As an absolute number it would far exceed the number of people suffering the same from minority ethnicities. If it weren't for other influences strongly promoting awareness of non-economic differences, I'd like to think (perhaps naively?) that these groups of people would find strong commonalities with one another and organize activities as a united front to change their circumstances.
While I don’t appreciate the assumption that I commented in bad faith, I do greatly appreciate your earnestness in responding. I grew up in a very conservative area and have never been exposed to these ideas.
Nevertheless, I disagree strongly with this line of thinking. Hate speech is wrong, regardless of who says it, and who the target is; not just because it hurts the target, but because it emboldens the attacker and others to continue being hateful. Social media platforms are where people spend hours every day; and while you may be intelligent and mature enough to accept anti-white hatred as a measure to correct past wrongs, you severely underestimate the degree to which less intelligent and less mature people (whom I promise you’ve spent far less time with than I have) are vulnerable to grievance and negative-polarization. You have to consider them as well if your goal is to create true change outside of the institutions controlled by you and people with your beliefs.
I am not closed to the idea of affirmative action and benefit given to disadvantages groups to make right some past wrongs. I just warn you to not take a maximalist stance that causes resentment or assumes that POC should not have their anti-white speech policed because of “the soft bigotry of low expectations.”
Nice exchange, thank you! The idea is to not ask either one of the groups to change their behavior, but to show understanding first. I agree that certain actions are 'wrong'. Things people do can be very wrong, and understandable at the same time. People quite often do not act out of rational thinking but out of emotions. And these emotions can be very strong and very 'old'. When I remind myself I am not "meant" by them I can feel less offended, which allows me in turn to both stay in understanding and protect myself. Speech is just words after all.
Are you asking how much was done with pen and paper, and how much of it was done on a computer, i.e. machine assisted? Where do you draw the line? How is "hands-on" in contrast to anything? Is it only "hands-on" when you don't use any tool to assist you?
I suspect you're inquiring about the use of LLMs, and about that I wonder: Why does it matter? Why are you asking?
First thanks for taking my question seriously and not as just a rib and asking a lot of questions in return that I want to consider myself.
By "hands-on" I'm asking whether the provided insight is the product of human intellection. Experienced, capable and qualified. Or at least an earnest attempt at thinking about something and explaining the discoveries in the ways that thinking was done before ChatGPT. For some reason I find myself using phrases involving the hands (etc. hands-on, handmade, hand-spun) as a metaphor for work done without the use of LLMs.
I emphasize insight because I feel like the series of work on the Snowden documents by libroot is wanting in that. I expressed as much the last time their writing hit the front page: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46236672>.
These are summaries. I don't think that it yields information that can't otherwise be pointed out and made mention of by others; presumably known and reputable. With as high-profile of an event that this is I'd expect someone covering it almost 16 years later to tell us beyond what when judged on the merit of its import amounts to a motivated section of the ‘Snowden disclosures’ Wikipedia entry.
The discussion that this series invites typically is centered around people's thoughts about the story of the Snowden documents in general, and in this case exchanges about technical aspects like how PDF documents work and can be manipulated in general. The one comment that I feel addresses the actual tension embedded in the article—"Who edited the documents?"—leads to accusations that the documents were tampered with by the media: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46566372>. I don't think that that's an implausible claim but I find issue with it being made with such confidence by the anonymous source behind the investigations (I'm withholding ironically putting "investigations" in...nevermind).
If the author actually provided something that advanced to the reader why this information is significant, what to do with or think about it and how they came about discovering the answers to the aforementioned 'why' and ‘what’ and additionally why they’re word ought to matter to us at all, I'd be less inclined to speculate that this is just someone vibe sleuthing their way through documents that on the surface are only significant to the public as the claim "the government is spying on you" is.
This particular post uncovers some nice information. It's a great find. I'm in no position to investigate whether it was already known. But what are we supposed to learn from it aside from "one of the documents were changed before it was made public". What's significant about the redaction? Is Ryan Gallagher responsible? Or does he know who is. Is he at all obliged to explain this to a presumably anonymous inquirer? Or is it now the duty of the public to expect an explanation as affected by said anonymous inquirer?
Remember when believing that the government was rife with pedophiles automatically associated you with horn-helmet-wearing insurrectionists?
Are you confusing me with the authors, or why would you think I could? And I'm asking 'tolerance' to clarify their question, which means I wouldn't be able to answer it even if I had the knowledge they were after, since I don't understand what they're asking.
I guess you're getting downvoted since the claim that "FFmpeg is now somewhat broken" remains unsubstantiated. You're relying on information from LLMs which by definition are closer to random guesses than anything else. Effectively, what you're saying is that you cannot be bothered to learn the actual, albeit complex, syntax of FFmpeg to solve your problem, which is totally fine and up to you, but your conclusion that the tool is broken is like saying "this car is broken" when you don't know how to operate it and drive.
The idea was of course that someone else, one with working brain could run the example script and discover the underlying issue, which is weird and more complex.
A great way to get help is to ask for it. I'd imagine the ffmpeg community would be a lot more open to helping you if you didn't start off by saying their tool is broken, though
It is clearly broken and very-very-very deeply so. On organizational level.
Quote Gemini:
This error is the "smoking gun." It confirms that no matter how we quote the command, your shell is treating the comma as a separator for the FFmpeg command itself rather than a character inside the filter.
Maybe I need to take a step back. If, and heavy on the if, you want to communicate issues with humans, you're doing it wrong. If you want to rely on LLMs (and look where that's getting you), by all means do it that way. With humans, they need to come to that conclusion on their own. An example is like this:
You: "I would like to remove blurry frames with ffmpeg. I think I want to use xyz method. Can anybody please help me craft the command?"
Them: "yes, here's the command" (and maybe it's exactly what the LLM output)
You: "it's giving this error code. Here's a snippet of my input file. Can you please check if that works on your end?"
Them: "oh wow you're absolutely right, this doesn't work, I'll put in the issue ticket"
This is a lot nicer than "something else told me how to use your tool and it's broken".
With all due respect, you're trusting LLMs to a delusional level... they love talking about "smoking guns", that part made me laugh. Like another user said, sounds like its admitting the issue is in the shell anyways. They dont have intimate documentation knowledge of everything, use it more as a launch pad to test ideas and better shape your understanding of a subject knowing that it gets things wrong alot.
Watching the zombifying effects of AI "think" for others in real time is depressing.
You are completely missing his point with his answer. His point was less about ffmpeg being broken or not, and more about the fact that if you can't have an opinion or input of your own beside parroting a advanced Markov chain generator, then you don't matter in the discussion.
Assuming I'm the he, that last part isn't exactly what I meant. I meant that there's not a good faith effort in partaking in the conversation. I disagree with blindly following the LLM but even if you do there are ways to productively get help with it.
For me, it is important to know and reflect on these stories so we can collectively heal and learn from them, regarding child abuse, narcissism, and especially (what is also mentioned in the article) enabling such abuse. This is why I posted it.
If we bury these stories, and always only talk about it when people are long dead or not at all, we as communities will not evolve out of those patterns. A culture that "honors the dead" by not talking about the bad stuff they've done is catering to its abusers.
Today, we should talk about Trump, Musk, etc, also in the light of how they treat their children. And what we can and should do to protect those that cannot protect themselves.
We all have responsibility - the ability to respond. If we look away from the stories, we will also look away when something happens near us. And it should encourage us to grow in how we treat other people (especially children) around us. Yes, this can bring up difficult feelings about our own acts, and our own childhood experiences. And it should.
Who or what defines what is "too much" of any ingredient? Isn't that a scoring system too?
European NutriScore "assigns products a rating letter from A (best) to E (worst), with associated colors from green to red. High content of fruits and vegetables, fibers, protein and healthy oils (rapeseed, walnut and olive oils) per 100 g of food product promote a preferable score, while high content of energy, sugar, saturated fatty acids, and sodium per 100 g promote a detrimental score." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutri-Score
> "relax" or "do not disturb" modes - curious if that actually works for anyone?
Ever since I've owned a smartphone, they have been on "do not disturb" 24/7. People that know me know they won't reach me directly, but that I will call them back eventually. I do have a couple of voice calls every day; I schedule them ahead of time based on my own actions, and set an alarm to take out the phone.
I am typically involved in something and I don't want to be disturbed during it; it may just be thinking, or reading, or actually talking to a human being present with me; why would I ever want to be disturbed? I only check my phone when I want to actively perform some task with it anyway, e.g. to look at maps, and then I put it away again. I don't mind carrying it around and needing to use it increasingly for tickets and such. I do not experience this as "self control". I don't have the urge to take out my wallet or keys or umbrella unless I need them either. Why would I.
I typically (also) carry a paper book to read on public transport or in cafés.
I've lived in Germany for four decades with plenty of moving around, and have yet to move into a place where a kitchen was not either provided or left there from the previous tenant (sometimes with a more symbolic compensation; it's not worth to rip it out since it often only fits that particular place anyway so there is pressure to give it away cheaply).
That's your story. Here's mine. My daughter moved out of an apartment in Hamburg. The fridges, washing machines, beds or whatever I can understand. They are designed to be installed after the building is complete.
What blew me away was being forced to remove the ceiling lights, and leaving the live wires dangling down. Don't underestimate the difficulty of doing this for someone who has to do it after working hours. You switch off the power of course, which leaves you in total darkness. Naturally I had not thought of that little complication beforehand.
"In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic."
"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data."
(Perhaps you missed rendx pointing this out first). Your question about the downvotes ("Has someone got sock puppet accounts on here?") misses the guideline:
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like
(Which rendx also pointed out). And the guideline:
> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
Because of systemic racism, treating you and me "equally" as you ask for would continue the discrimination. In order to undo the discrimination, we're asked to take a step back and be truthful to ourselves and others about our existing privileges and about all the systemic racism we're benefitting from. We don't have to agree with every single action of those trying to change it, and it's certainly not our "fault", but unless you have better ideas on how to fix the issues and repair some of the damages, and put those ideas into practice, we can at least show some respect and dignity in the face of centuries of very violent suppression of minorities and natives. Because not doing that would make us 'supremacists' indeed. We have the privilege that we don't have to experience outright racism day by day by day, generation over generation over generation; we're asked to at least educate ourselves about it, instead of crying out for not being treated 'equally' here and there. Some humbleness.
It's not meant to offend you as an individual. It's not your fault. But what we can do is (trying to at least a bit) understand where all the rage and despair is coming from, bottled up for so many generations, and that while we're "innocent", we're still "targets", and rightfully so -- our ancestors profitted and so did we, by association. I agree that it can hurt to experience it in little things, but I am mindful that it is part of my tiny contributions to accept it, and I understand that if I express my frustration it will cause pain in those that don't have my privileges, and will not in their lifetimes. I do not want to be treated equally. I really have sufficient privileges that it's fine to take a step back in some situations. I don't have to take it personally.
There's plenty of good literature about these dynamics. If you're interested, I can recommend some. We can at least try to listen and understand what is being asked of us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_racism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_defensiveness#White_frag...
reply