> a bit idealistic about the efficiency of most human-to-human communication.
I don't know if I would call it idealism. I feel like what we're discovering is that while the efficiency of communication is important, the efficacy of communication is more important. And chatbots are far less reliable at communicating the important/relevant information correctly. It doesn't really matter how easy it is to send an email if the email simply says the wrong thing.
To your point though, it's just rude. I've already seen a few cases where people have been chastised for checking out of a conversation and effectively letting their chatbot engage for them. Those conversations revolved around respect and good faith, not efficiency (or even efficacy, for that matter).
I was about to recommend Caves of Qud, being a traditionally inspired rogue-like. However, it encourages slow and careful play over fast play. The game is brutally difficult and the main story long, so a run takes a long time, especially experience the content off the beaten path.
I don't think what it's you're looking for, but I do think it is an incredible game, and I have thoroughly enjoyed my time in it.
Programmatically determining the region of an AWS EC2 instance using the metadata API was very annoying in the past; there was no endpoint for it. Instead, devs used many methods to determine the region[1], primarily by dropping the last letter off of the availability zone, (e.g. `us-east-1a` -> `us-east-1`) which was queriable.
At this point, AWS has updated the API to allow querying for the region as one would expect. See my answer on the afore-footnoted question[2].
> As a kid, reading aloud in class was always nerve wracking because of this.
Yup, reading out loud was the absolute worst. I have different issues though, and because of my reading's tight associations with speech(1), I couldn't even read ahead. I think my "only-when-read-out-loud" stutter comes from the social anxiety I developed here.
(1) i.e. To read words with my eyes, I have to mentally speak them to myself.
Through concentration and compensation skills we've acquired over the years, some dyslexic people can read _almost_ normally. At least, that was the case for me. If I really mentally exert, I can often force myself to read fluidly and read almost as if proficient. The problem is that it is costly to do so and highly conditional.
For example: Doing reading comprehension tests in school, I would often perform well, if not a bit slowly. Given a book report, however, I would not be able to keep up such effort for very long; reading that way was very strenuous. Furthermore, when tasked with reading out loud, I slow to a crawl, begin to stutter, and translate inaccurately.
Anyways, my point is that, we can sometimes read normally, it can just be extra difficult.
As for this example specifically, I can't speak to its authenticity since I don't have the "moving characters" symptoms. My issues mostly revolve around poor eye tracking.
I would disagree; "Better Platform" != "Supported Platform".
While it is an admission Linux gaming was hardly going to take off on its own from a cold start, it allows people to use the platform that makes more sense for them. With the increased capability of Linux+Proton as a platform, its horizons are pushed and it makes more sense for more people.
The only possible downside here is the potential for a developer to neglect Linux support now that people "can just run it in proton", netting Linux users a couple losses of what-would-have-been native ports. However, I believe the increase to the viability of Linux gaming overall makes up for it.
^^ These parts of the article also bothered me, and tainted many of his other possibly/probably valid points.
> ...we have seen the development of machine learning tools that can perform in minutes the same analysis for which a human computer science major required hours or even days.
Statements like this just demonstrate an obvious lack of understanding of how the field of computer science works. Guess who developed those machine learning tools? A machine learning engineer _who more than likely studied CS._
It's just hard to trust the author on other topics where I'm less familiar, seeing the data clearly driven toward a predetermined narrative.
It reeks of cherrypicking to me, regardless of how well justified it is or isn't.
The "left" and "right" political descriptors are often problematic in this sense, since they are relative terms. If you ask my conservative parents where CNN is, they'll describe it relative to their own placement on the spectrum. But an eye-of-the-beholder center is problematic for communication, so how should one determine the middle? A mean? Median? Something else?
But that doesn't even address a dependent problem of the quantifiablilty of a political ideology. You can't boil a belief into a number; why do we pretend that polotical ideologies fall on a soft numberline? A libertarian may "lean left" on marijuana legalization, but "lean right" on gun control.
Indeed, the left-right dichonomy's inability to house non-linear opinions or ideas leads to a lot of confusion, especially so in journalism. Where does a factual, source based news outlet lie on the spectrum?
I have very mixed feelings about this. Let me explain:
This move from China is definitely going to bring more incentive for illegal poaching. It's just simple economics: by officially bringing a market back, profits to be made are much greater, and people will find any way to get in on the action.
If, however, if we provide more _legal_ means for people to benefit from the tiger and rhino markets, we could provide enough economic incentive for people to be invested in their survival. The big deal here would be the opportunity for private ownership (rhino and tiger 'farms' basically). People will viciously protect what's theirs from poachers and ensure it's continued existence, especially if there is money to be made by doing so.
If people are allowed to privately own, breed, and sell their tigers and rhinos, I think China's move could actually _facilitate recovery_ for both species.
But is that what China's planning to do? I doubt it given their track record and political philosophies, which means this is going to only make the extinction of tigers and rhino's a bigger problem.
I don't know if I would call it idealism. I feel like what we're discovering is that while the efficiency of communication is important, the efficacy of communication is more important. And chatbots are far less reliable at communicating the important/relevant information correctly. It doesn't really matter how easy it is to send an email if the email simply says the wrong thing.
To your point though, it's just rude. I've already seen a few cases where people have been chastised for checking out of a conversation and effectively letting their chatbot engage for them. Those conversations revolved around respect and good faith, not efficiency (or even efficacy, for that matter).