Interesting read, thanks for re-sharing!

I noticed your joy-check link 404's now... I tried poking around your /skills/ folder but didn't find it easily. Should you still have that available I'd love to check it out.

edit: Found it if others are looking: https://github.com/notque/vexjoy-agent/blob/main/skills/code...

Oh, thanks for letting me know. I need to fix that.

Thats why he specifically called out CDL drivers, or in another part of this thread they talked about rideshare drivers. Certain segments of humans likely approach the same rates as the driverless cars.

So? The vast majority are not CDL or rideshare drivers.

All my tubs and sinks in the bathrooms have an 'overflow drain' near the top which you are unable to fill beyond. Is there any reason why that wouldn't be sufficient?

It makes the tub taller than it is deep by a little bit and doesn't look as nice are the only reason I can think of. A little bit of splashed water just isn't a big deal in most wet bathroom setups. They could also just put a drain right off the side of the tub.

My Japanese style bathroom here both has an overflow in the tub and a drain in the middle of the room.

Yeah, if the drain in the sink is clogged. US bathroom pipe is 1.25" which will (probably) lead to a 2" and 4" pipe eventually (depending on when, where, and how your house was built ofc). The hole in the sink leads to the same initial pipe.

I read it as though he was trying to say '[you are] opt[ed] in by default'.

Now granted, he did not say that, and I only reached that conclusion by the rest of this conversation, but I think to have meant that and said '... was now also opt-in by default...' isn't unreasonable.

Just sharing since you mentioned you couldn't see how using that term for the opposite would make sense.

Thank you. However, assuming you mean ‘an affirmative choice is made for you’ when you say ’you are opted in’, that use really takes the ‘opt’ out of the ’opt-in’. You can opt in, but you can’t have someone else ‘opt you in’ for you; that seems to go against the very core meaning of ‘opt-in’ (i.e. having to explicitly choose something yourself).

In other words, you can explicitly choose something by yourself, but if other people (in this case companies, service providers) choose something for you, it’s no longer your explicit decision made by yourself. Hence why I believe we can’t consider that ‘opting in’.

Even read this way, it doesn't make logical sense. It's a great example of newspeak - corporations know people use "opt-in" as a purchasing signal, so they're trying to redefine the word by abusing it enough times.

"Opting someone else in" is essentially the same category of error as "consenting for someone else". People can only consent for others in specific circumstances and even then only for specific people (e.g. legal guardians), trying to argue "but I consented for them!" in front of a judge usually ain't gonna work.

This sorta scratched my brain - Isn't more speed, at least partially, laziness driven? There's a grocery about 1.5 miles from my house, and I can and do walk it, but when I don't want to commit all that time, I jump on my bike. I don't feel like I spend more energy on that trip when biking vs walking, but I may. The driver there, for me, is lesser time commitment to the task.

Framed another way - Is laziness defined as only 'spending less energy on it', or could there also a time commitment component?

Hmm... I guess I don't think saving time is laziness. I think that's clever. Laziness is a quality I don't like. It's not clever, it often ends up creating more problems down the line. Like leaving clutter everywhere or always taking the easy way at every turn without thinking ahead.

Saving time by cycling isn't creating any problems, it's just cleverly using a machine to give you more time to do other things.

The bicycle has been credited as being a part of the liberation of women. It gave them independence they didn't have before. They weren't just being lazy.

> What happens when 50% of the population is on some cocktail of GLPs, stimulants, painkillers, sleep meds, and antidepressants simultaneously because it was deemed easier and more instantly gratifying to prescribe chronic medication for everything than addressing any actual causes?

Don't you then start trying to figure out how you can reduce the uses of those precriptions, while maintaining the health figures they're helping to produce? Isn't the answer to do something better than doing nothing? Work with the problem in front of you? etc.

If you're asking genuinely, yes it can be condescending to persist in asking for 'exactly' what they've done, especially when the discussion isn't focused on their diet or their success and failure.

People tend to not want advice when they're not seeking it, and when someone wants to dissect every detail of what they've done that hasn't worked, when they mentioned it merely as an anecdote, it tends to be perceived as condescending.

I'll keep on asking exact things you've done as long as you keep claiming something doesn't work, when I know it does and have worked for many.

About advise part, I am not looking to offer him any advise I am simply defending the method and ideas, so that other people can find success with it similar to what I've done for me and for many others.

Your advice is exactly the same advice that people have been giving for decades. Look around. Giving that advice doesn't work for most people.

How much weight did you lose, and how long have you kept it off?

the discussion in this thread is about the long-term effects of using drugs to fix conditions that were fixed by lifestyle changes before the drugs.

Giving up the very difficult route of changing lifestyle for the easier alternative of taking drugs for weight loss comes with both biological and social consequences.

The people talking about that shouldn't be bullied to feel ashamed of not taking or recommending taking drugs.

> How about we instead make time during the school day for kids to sit down and do the (incredibly valuable) bit of applying what they're learning to some concrete tasks?

This is great in theory, but then you have students who complete those tasks in half the time allotted, who then proceed to distract the rest of the class.

No easy one size fits all to the hw problem unfortunately.

Universal K-12 education was probably one of the greatest level-up programs that society has ever implemented. The question now, is it holding us back and how (if) it should be reformed. And reform is dangerous as there are people whose only goal is to ruin it, damned the consequences.

Could you give an example of an issue we tell people to suck it up about? I'd like to think a reasonable society would hear the worries and complaints of everyone within it.

I don't disagree if its building the whole song, but given that this is tooling within the DAW, if an artist went in and said 'give me 5 alternative reverb sounds on this track', is that not using AI as a tool? Yes, the AI is creating the sound profile, but is that any different then using presets, or samples?

I used to play around for days just making sounds on my synth. The process of creating them was often just turning random knobs and dials. If the AI is turning those for me, thats not a tool?