CapeWearingAeroplane

GET THE ROUNDIE!

The way I understand this, the issue is that without reading it they cannot verify that it doesn't contain sensitive information, so they can't give it out. That sounds like a reasonable explanation to me.

The issue with online voting, no matter what you do, is that someone can force you under threat of violence to vote for a specific candidate, and watch to make sure you do it. Complete privacy in the voting booth is paramount to ensuring that everyone can vote freely.

Oh, I definitely get that the major appeal of excel is a close to non-existent barrier to entry. I mean, an elementary school kid can learn the basics(1) of using excel within a day. And yes, there are definitely programs out there that have excel as their only interface :/ I was really referring to the case where you have the option to do something "from scratch", i.e. not relying on previously developed programs in the excel sheet.

(1) I'm aware that you can do complex stuff in excel, the point is that the barrier to entry is ridiculously low, which is a compliment.

I just cannot imagine any task you can do in excel that isn't easier to do with Python/Pandas. The simplest manipulations of an excel sheet pretty much require you to chain an ungodly list of arcane commands that are completely unreadable, and god forbid you need to work with data from several workbooks at the same time...

You are neglecting the cost-benefit of temporarily jumping to the wrong conclusion while waiting for more conclusive evidence though. Not doing anything because evidence that this is bad is too thin, and being wrong, can have severe long-term consequences. Restricting tiktok and later finding out that it has no detrimental effects has essentially zero negative consequences. We have a word for this principle in my native language - that if you are in doubt about whether something can have severe negative consequences, you are cautious about it until you can conclude with relative certainty that it is safe, rather than the other way around, which would be what you are suggesting: Treating something as safe until you have conclusive evidence that it is not, at which point a lot of damage may already be done.

So what you're saying is: We have a small sample of unreliable evidence that this thing may be absolutely detrimental to the developing brain. Thus, we should assume it's fine until we have more reliable evidence. Did I get that right?

I've found chatgpt reasonably good for one thing: Generating regex-patterns. I don't know regex for shit, but if I ask for a pattern described with words, I get a working pattern 9/10 times. It's also a very easy use-case to double check.

I was thinking something similar: If you have the computer write in a formal language, designed in such a way that it is impossible to make an incorrect statement, I guess it could be possible to get somewhere with this

We tried the "trade your skills for something you need". In every surviving society it eventually lead to the development of a currency (not hard to see why), which requires/leads to regulation, which requires enforcement, aaaand you're back at a modern society. I'm all for more regulation to reduce economic and social differences in society, but the people that are talking about abolishing governments and currencies need to pick up a history book and follow their ideas to their natural conclusion.

"Controlling speech" is a hallmark of authoritarian governments, be they far-left or far-right, there are plenty of historical examples of both.

I believe there's a quote by "Taco" in"Better call Saul" along the lines of "I love robbing criminals, because they never go to the cops"

When did he get steamrolled? When he ensured that corrupt people were sentenced by a court before being jailed, or when he applied to join the famously pro-fascist EU?