Having lived there for a few years, I don’t think this describes Japanese child raising culture at all. I’m not sure how you can infer so much about the culture based on a single visit to Japan without any ability to speak the language. You may have just had culture shock.

Why do you say that media bias fact check is baseless propaganda?

edit: One of the most left leaning but highly factual news sites I go to is Fair.org. This site is almost always against the major mainstream media consensus, but backs up its claims with lots of high quality reasoning and evidence. MBFC rate it left-center and high factual reporting.

It gives Jacobin, probably one of the biggest left leaning news sites in the US, a left leaning and high factual reporting score. Jacobin calls themselves left leaning, of course. For anyone who knows history, it’s right in their name. So what’s the problem there?

Meanwhile, it gives all the major right wing news sites poor ratings. Fox News, Breitbart, Epoch times, etc. get an extreme right and Mixed factual reporting score.

So I understand why you would besmirch MBFC if you’re some rightwinger. But, from the left, I don’t understand. Reality has a left leaning bias.

That’s good to know. Though I wish people I knew, both apple and android, would switch to Signal instead.

One of the common definitions of “regularly” is “frequently”. E.g. “We used to meet regularly, but less and less as time went on.” This is also why frequent customers are called “regulars”.

edit: “Happening or doing something often” is even the first definition of the Cambridge English dictionary. Misinterpreting OP’s use of “regular” just feels like Stack Overflow level pedantry.

The problem is that, in the US and Canada, android users don’t tend to use those apps en masse. The vast majority use SMS.

Criticism is not a scarce quantity to be preserved. It spreads, like a fire. Take literally any social movement, like #metoo or BLM. People don’t suppress smaller stories to “save” criticism for bigger stories. The small stories add up. Right now, the F150 is one of the best selling cars in the US. The average American is no where close to criticizing it. But everyone already makes fun of the cyber truck. We can use that.

“Let’s not criticize this dangerous truck design because we should save our criticism!” is the worst way to get people to criticize dangerous truck design.

“I don’t like x but it can’t be worse than y” is a construction which serves to minimize how bad something is. Instead, let’s scrutinize both: “This cyber truck is ridiculously dangerous. While we’re at it, let’s also regulate the 4 feet tall wall of grill on other trucks.”

Your wording makes it sound like the existence of even more dangerous trucks somehow excuses this dangerous truck. Both the 4 ft wall and the sharp metal blade edges are dangerous and irresponsible designs.

I was addressing your strong claim that they can’t do anything about it. I see no technical or theoretical reason to believe that. Give it at least a week.

Seems simple enough to guard against to me. Fact is, if a human can easily detect a pattern, a machine can very likely be made to detect the same pattern. Pattern matching is precisely what NNs are good at. Once the pattern is detected (I.e. being asked to repeat something forever), safeguards can be initiated (like not passing the prompt to the language model or increasing the probability of predicting a stop token early).

Nowhere in your first comment do you make anything like the argument in your second comment. You say that my summary is reductive and that I built an “over complicated argument” by talking about broken promises. But then you essentially argue that this will be a broken promise!

Your second argument is more reasonable, and not at all over complicated, which is why I anticipated it. The problem with your fatalist take is that “mere talk” precedes, not only broken promises, but also fulfilled promises. Honestly, if your cynical take is right, then there’s no reason to expect anything from any party ever. Cynicism is depressingly fashionable on the left.

Well said. This feels like an existential election for Taiwan.

Is it “mere talk” when Biden says US support for Israel is unconditional? No, we can and should criticize him for that because those words encourage Israel to act without restraint. But, conversely, when the US signals that they will not support actions like forced relocation, we should also see that as a corrective, not “mere talk”.

To your point, in IR theory, there also exists phenomena such as the paradox of empty promises, where making unfulfilled promises can worsen human rights. But that claim is more nuanced: the problem occurs when promises are empty. That doesn’t mean all promises are empty or promising doesn’t matter. Public declarations are a necessary step (but insufficient on their own) to justify further action.

This might be the first time I’ve heard a demand imposed on Israel from the US during this recent escalation. Hopefully, the first of many.

Yeah my first thought too given how much that’s been in the news.

Might be like how it is here in Canada. Pro-immigrant, but much more contemptuous of the indigenous population.

I’m in favour of more regulation of big corporations, especially for financial services, so I’m not ready to dismiss this move as “complete nonsense”.

Apple/Google Pay is an additional intermediary that allows you to pay for things on your devices using your credit card. They charge fees over and above the credit cards, and have power over their respective digital platforms — for example, where and when you can easily use the service.

Now you might counter that they both happen to be pretty fair about that. They haven’t been using their power to unfairly exclude merchants or credit cards, and maybe their fees are fair. I don’t personally know. But the fact that they have the power to not be fair is evidence to me that there is something to be regulated there, independent of regulation of credit card companies.

Am I the only one experiencing little 1-2 second jitters? It’s as if it skips where an ad should be. I still don’t see an ad though.

They just had an election and the government flipped from centre-left to centre-right. It could just be the classic conservative “our position is whatever is the opposite of the left!”

To say “they’re all trash” is to minimize the horrible behavior as commonplace, and the party committing it as not especially worthy of scorn. For example: “Germany shouldn’t have committed genocide, but what country hasn’t committed genocide?” This is a statement that minimizes the seriousness of genocide. It is a shitty thing to say.

Speaking of gaslighting! “Who hasn’t done x” is a construction whose only purpose is to minimize how horrible x is.